[noVICE]

I know this is not the first time this has been mentioned, but seriously... how long does it take to fix the image quality on the PPG?? When I started out looking at getting into DSLR I found the Pentax Photo Gallery to be an amazing resource which ultimately convinced me to go with Pentax. The website currently presents blurry, low-res images to people who may not be aware of the typical quality of Pentax products. In my opinion this is one of the worst marketing mistakes that any company could make. I would have assumed that Ricoh would be attempting to raise the brand awareness and yet they have left a considerably important marketing tool to display their products as a poor competitor to the iPhone camera. Come on Ricoh, let's get the ball rolling on this one...

[Arrvon]

I agree 100%....been wondering why the quality hasn't been increased as well. In addition, I noticed too that a lot more pictures are getting through than the old PPG. I don't know if that's a good thing or not...but that's another debate all together.

[wlachan]

PPG was dead, it is still dead. The interface is poor and slow, the quality of pictures are mostly average to low. I cannot imagine anyone spending time browsing them other than those did submit when there are trillions awesome pics elsewhere.

[FruitLooPs]

PPG was dead, it is still dead. The interface is poor and slow, the quality of pictures are mostly average to low. I cannot imagine anyone spending time browsing them other than those did submit when there are trillions awesome pics elsewhere.

I find the 'new' site much more snappy to use, less fancy interface chugging along - but also the images are definitely heavily compressed and soft, maybe it helps with the speed of the site but its pretty terrible.

[einstrigger]

I don't really like PPG either. Old site was really graphic intensive and resource draining on my computer. New site is simpler, but the way they present the photos? C'mon! Lots of blurry cam under exposed stuff. They really need to get a handle on what's being displayed. If I were someone researching the brand and comparing images to competitors, I would pass on Pentax. The photos they present are just too "amateurish", when I know there are a lot of exceptional Pentax photogs out there.

[jpzk]

There was (is) an option to "upgrade" your selected pictures to a 900 px size for a limited time - I believe it is March 1st 2012.

However, I have somewhere around 200 + pics in there and I thought this would be a PITB to resize+resubmit each one.

So, I have opened a Flickr account a little while back and find that my pictures now show as they are meant to be.
The details are not lost and it is so much easier to post from that site to another, for instance.

I will likely retrieve all the originals on my computer (from PPG accepted sub,issions) and post them at Flickr.

JP

[Ash]

The image rendition has improved since it was relaunched, but I'm finding it increasingly difficult to be able to link images from the gallery.
Nevertheless, I don't believe it's a failure - it just needs ongoing tweaking...

[Gillies]

I just searched out this thread because I just noticed the poor quality in my last two approved images. To add insult, I see that the image quality seem to be rendered properly on my dashboard but not in my gallery.
I followed jpzk,s lead and opened a flicker account last night only to see that they have far superior resolution, as does panoramio.
I can only say that I won't be sending anymore PPG links out until this issue has been rectified.

[TOUGEFC]

Ive given up with PPG.
Its not what it used to be

[Ash]

I'm not sure. It seems to render quite fine now.
These images are direct links from PPG:









They're as sharp and colourful as the resized originals...
How do they look on your screen?

[Gillies]

To Ash
Have you tried flipping back and forth between a blowup on your dash board and your gallery shot? This is where I noticed the difference.

[noVICE]

Thanks for the heads up Ash. The images are looking a lot better now. I still get the feeling that they are not at 100% quality though. I just searched K5 - FA 31mm and many of the images are not as sharp as I would have expected. It could be that the photos themselves are not very sharp, but I have trouble believing that so many truly are. Here is a screen grab from PPG. This image was shot with a K5 + FA 31mm, 1/350 sec Exposure, F3.5. http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/9846/ppgexample1.jpg
Here is (I assume) the point of focus of the image.


I still feel there may be some issues for PPG to figure out. I am using Firefox, so maybe it is a browser related problem? Either way I still believe that this website needs to be a showcase of what Pentax cameras and Lenses can do and I would prefer stricter controls on what is shown there. As I have said before this is a major advertising tool for Pentax, it would be silly to diminish the quality of the website.

[Ash]

To Ash
Have you tried flipping back and forth between a blowup on your dash board and your gallery shot? This is where I noticed the difference.

I only look at the images at 100%, and as such I see no differences. Of course if they're blown up above 100% they'll not look neat. I have my originals to give me a better look at these images on my computer screen.

[Ash]

Thanks for the heads up Ash. The images are looking a lot better now. I still get the feeling that they are not at 100% quality though. I just searched K5 - FA 31mm and many of the images are not as sharp as I would have expected. It could be that the photos themselves are not very sharp, but I have trouble believing that so many truly are. Here is a screen grab from PPG. This image was shot with a K5 + FA 31mm, 1/350 sec Exposure, F3.5. http://img804.imageshack.us/img804/9846/ppgexample1.jpg
Here is (I assume) the point of focus of the image.


I still feel there may be some issues for PPG to figure out. I am using Firefox, so maybe it is a browser related problem? Either way I still believe that this website needs to be a showcase of what Pentax cameras and Lenses can do and I would prefer stricter controls on what is shown there. As I have said before this is a major advertising tool for Pentax, it would be silly to diminish the quality of the website.

I use Safari and haven't had a problem with my own images for a few months now. It used to be quite blurry at one stage soon after the overhaul. What you're showing me with this image is indeed soft, and I can't tell why. If you see my linked images better than you see the ones on PPG, then I'm confused as to where the blu rinses gets introduced to your images.

[twitch]

PPG is a waste of electrons in the WWW.