Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
10-26-2015, 01:17 AM   #1
Pentaxian
Culture's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vaasa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
Professional website pictures.

Ever since i created my website, wiix.com (in my sig). I noticed that images on my page were not crisp.
I thought it had something to do with how I had resized the images for the web.
Eventually I found out that, that was not the case, but rather the web service what I was using was put an extra compression to my images. A lot of people have complained when I google this problem on the net.

I am not sure if all web services that provides image hosting services apply compression to the image uploaded.

So my question is

1. What image size do you use for your web? I have been using a around 640x400. Does that affect quality or sharpness if the image size is too small?

2.I have a google photos account that I can upload my images and link them to my site. But a friend has suggested Flickr as being better because their compression algorithm is better than google photos. I dont want to create another image hosting account only to find out that that is not the solution to the problem that I am facing my site.

Any advice?

10-26-2015, 02:33 AM   #2
Pentaxian
kenspo's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: Oslo
Posts: 2,192
640x400? is this 1997? Wix is bad anyway, but read the FAQ's or whatever..Most places tell you what is the best size for that specific site.

But with todays screens etc, i use 1800px at the widest side.

And yes, Flickr is way better that way.
10-26-2015, 02:50 AM   #3
Senior Member




Join Date: May 2014
Posts: 292
I had wix for a while, very average. Go with zenfolio. Highly professional website with great features and ease of use.

Last edited by Parallax; 10-30-2015 at 11:08 AM. Reason: Blog link removed
10-26-2015, 03:06 AM   #4
Pentaxian
Culture's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vaasa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by kenspo Quote
640x400? is this 1997? Wix is bad anyway, but read the FAQ's or whatever..Most places tell you what is the best size for that specific site.

But with todays screens etc, i use 1800px at the widest side.

And yes, Flickr is way better that way.
Kenspo, that was fun to read. Big fan of you work too.

I will check the FAQ.

---------- Post added 26-10-15 at 13:08 ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by Mattox Quote
I had wix for a while, very average. Go with zenfolio. Highly professional website with great features and ease of use. This is my website if you want to check it out.


MATT BISHOP PHOTOGRAPHY
Wiix gives free services. I am not making that much money with my work so for the mean time I am having been looking for something free.

I dont think Zenfolio or Smugmug give free services.

10-26-2015, 05:29 AM   #5
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,209
The images on your site I looked at had jpeg compression corresponding to a standard quality level of 75* with no chroma subsampling. What compression settings on what program were you applying before uploading?

This is an ok amount of compression. In most cases you'll have to look pretty close to spot differences between a setting of 75 and a setting of 100, but it depends on the image content. Most people browsing through online images won't be able to tell the difference - it's the pixel peeping photographers who will raise a stink. Lower compression settings (higher quality levels) begin to have large costs on the file size (in kilobytes) and increased load times for visitors. A slow loading website is one I'm likely to leave and never return to, so I would caution against huge changes here.

The images I had looked at on your site were around 900pix on the long side. Larger images of course go towards longer load times. Personally, I'm fine with 900, but a little larger here also won't hurt much.



*which corresponds to the 75 setting in many programs, GIMP, Faststone, Irfanview, and many more. Some programs, notably Photoshop & Lightroom, use a different scale.
10-26-2015, 06:29 AM   #6
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 1,146
QuoteOriginally posted by Culture Quote
I dont think Zenfolio or Smugmug give free services.
the basic plans are relatively cheap though. I took the account for 70/year & and basic selling is incorporated (not that i have been selling much & it is not my real goal either..)
for me this works fine, as i like having a digital platform that looks nice & where i can show people my stuff..
https://christophegryspeert.smugmug.com/
I have been comparing both recently & found smugmug to be the nicest and most affordable one.
10-26-2015, 08:10 AM   #7
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,713
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
This is an ok amount of compression.
Perhaps I am a perfectionist, but my opinion is that any compression of an image for sale or professional display (thumbnails excluded) should be the done by the photographer. That is one reason why I don't upload to Pentax Forums. Additionally, it is my opinion that 25% compression (the 75 setting) is too high regardless of the tool used. I use that for e-mail.

Here is an interesting tutorial that shows an estimation of loss at different settings:

FotoForensics



Steve
10-26-2015, 08:40 AM   #8
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Perhaps I am a perfectionist, but my opinion is that any compression of an image for sale or professional display (thumbnails excluded) should be the done by the photographer. That is one reason why I don't upload to Pentax Forums. Additionally, it is my opinion that 25% compression (the 75 setting) is too high regardless of the tool used.
The tool definitely matters. For example, a "75" in Lightroom is pretty low on the compression scheme, closer to a 90 in other programs.

It's always a balance between speed and quality. There's no one right answer on the best balance to hit, and I think it's worth trying out the different settings to see what works best for your purposes. I'm not at all opposed to less compression, but keep your website visitors in mind, and how they're likely to be browsing your images.

Another interesting compression discussion with lots of examples, for Lightroom users:

Jeffrey Friedl's Blog

10-26-2015, 09:07 AM   #9
Otis Memorial Pentaxian
Loyal Site Supporter
stevebrot's Avatar

Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Vancouver (USA)
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 32,713
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
keep your website visitors in mind, and how they're likely to be browsing your images.
Indeed! And for most, managing page load time by management of pixel dimensions and image number is a good option along with just-in-time load with user scroll. FWIW, I don't know any working pro that exposes large images, even with watermark, on the Web. Too tempting.


Steve
10-26-2015, 01:20 PM   #10
Pentaxian
Culture's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vaasa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
Original Poster
After using raw in darktable I have used gimp on the jpeg. And I have always saved my files at 100% image quality. Will that be the compression rate being discussed?

On my computer, the images look fine. But when I upload to the site then see the difference.
10-27-2015, 04:28 AM   #11
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Culture Quote
After using raw in darktable I have used gimp on the jpeg. And I have always saved my files at 100% image quality. Will that be the compression rate being discussed?
Yes. Wix compression will correspond to 75 in the gimp. Flickr is something in the 90 area.

The original files you uploaded to wix still seem to be there, for example the fly in this lightbox:

Abeka Bonney Photography

here's a direct link to the compressed jpg wix used in the above (75 quality weighing in at 63kB):

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9f45e7_7d5304f424ac47b6a5ff231203072d21.j...0_0.00_jpg_srb

Here's a direct link to what I'd guess is much closer to the original you uploaded (this one looks to be 100 quality, weighing in at 413kB):

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9f45e7_7d5304f424ac47b6a5ff231203072d21.jpg

There are instructions in the comments here: https://www.wix.com/support/html5/ugc/d9e1751e-626c-40e6-b0d8-1fc00dae4c25/b...8-080ba157f4db about enabling html in Wix, and linking to the originals by hand. I wouldn't suggest uploading 100 quality jpegs if you planned to do this though, the file size hit gets atrocious.

---------- Post added 10-27-15 at 07:44 AM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by stevebrot Quote
Indeed! And for most, managing page load time by management of pixel dimensions and image number is a good option along with just-in-time load with user scroll.
...and to add my pet peeve - make sure you're serving up scaled images. I've lost count of the number of local websites I've found (serving my rural area, with less than stellar internet connections) that forced the loading of a 10mp 3mb image that gets sized to a 100px wide thumbnail in the browser. I *think* Wix mostly makes sure this doesn't happen.
10-27-2015, 05:25 AM   #12
Pentaxian
Culture's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vaasa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Yes. Wix compression will correspond to 75 in the gimp. Flickr is something in the 90 area.

The original files you uploaded to wix still seem to be there, for example the fly in this lightbox:

Abeka Bonney Photography

here's a direct link to the compressed jpg wix used in the above (75 quality weighing in at 63kB):

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9f45e7_7d5304f424ac47b6a5ff231203072d21.j...0_0.00_jpg_srb

Here's a direct link to what I'd guess is much closer to the original you uploaded (this one looks to be 100 quality, weighing in at 413kB):

https://static.wixstatic.com/media/9f45e7_7d5304f424ac47b6a5ff231203072d21.jpg

There are instructions in the comments here: https://www.wix.com/support/html5/ugc/d9e1751e-626c-40e6-b0d8-1fc00dae4c25/b...8-080ba157f4db about enabling html in Wix, and linking to the originals by hand. I wouldn't suggest uploading 100 quality jpegs if you planned to do this though, the file size hit gets atrocious.

---------- Post added 10-27-15 at 07:44 AM ----------



...and to add my pet peeve - make sure you're serving up scaled images. I've lost count of the number of local websites I've found (serving my rural area, with less than stellar internet connections) that forced the loading of a 10mp 3mb image that gets sized to a 100px wide thumbnail in the browser. I *think* Wix mostly makes sure this doesn't happen.
Thanks for taking the time to look deep into this. Much appreciated

Yes I have also downloaded images from my site and compared its metadata to the original before upload.
It looks like all the metadata are similar. So I do not understand why the images look like that.

I have also read the link about the instructions before. But as you can see and from other threads about the complains, it seem that the problem still exists even with the guidelines that has been given.

I also read the enabling html in wix part. But it means having to do that for every individual image. Interestingly it seems like that trick does not work for a gallery.
10-27-2015, 05:34 AM   #13
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Culture Quote
Thanks for taking the time to look deep into this. Much appreciated

Yes I have also downloaded images from my site and compared its metadata to the original before upload.
It looks like all the metadata are similar. So I do not understand why the images look like that.
Which metadata are you looking at? Compare the file sizes in kB, smaller kB means more compression (assuming all other things are equal). Or use a tool like JPEGsnoop, to look more closely at the compression settings.

QuoteOriginally posted by Culture Quote
I also read the enabling html in wix part. But it means having to do that for every individual image. Interestingly it seems like that trick does not work for a gallery.
If you can't do custom html with a gallery, then I'm doubting you can host the images on a 3rd party website to embed into Wix and you're likely going to have to find a new website solution.
10-27-2015, 05:51 AM   #14
Pentaxian
Culture's Avatar

Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Vaasa
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 796
Original Poster
QuoteOriginally posted by BrianR Quote
Which metadata are you looking at? Compare the file sizes in kB, smaller kB means more compression (assuming all other things are equal). Or use a tool like JPEGsnoop, to look more closely at the compression settings.



If you can't do custom html with a gallery, then I'm doubting you can host the images on a 3rd party website to embed into Wix and you're likely going to have to find a new website solution.
Actually that is one thing that i did not look at. I did not look at the file size. I was more looking at the X/Y resolution. As I believed could tell more.
So you did find that there was a difference in image size. Interesting.

Actually you can link images from Google, Flickr and others. There is a plugin to connect to the photo hosting services.
10-27-2015, 01:43 PM   #15
Pentaxian




Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Ontario
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,209
QuoteOriginally posted by Culture Quote
Actually you can link images from Google, Flickr and others. There is a plugin to connect to the photo hosting services.
Since it's set up for it, just try it with your google account since you already have one. If you're unhappy with the results, try flickr
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
account, check, compression, files, gimp, google, image, images, link, load, photo industry, photography, photos, quality, services, site, web, website, zenfolio
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Advice on building a professional website for photography brewmaster15 General Photography 2 04-13-2015 01:47 PM
Professional and being a Professional LaurenOE Pentax DSLR Discussion 39 10-29-2014 09:27 PM
Advice for setting up a website to show my pictures? Krzys Photographic Industry and Professionals 16 12-31-2011 10:01 AM
Got a professional website setup! codiac2600 Post Your Photos! 6 10-01-2007 07:54 PM
Help find a website with funny pictures vievetrick General Talk 3 03-02-2007 02:06 PM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:28 PM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top