[jpzk]

What's wrong with this picture?
The photo looks very "soft" here, unlike on my computer monitor ... ??
I know there are a few things wrong but I'd like some feedback from you!
Thanks,
JP

---

Last edited by jpzk; 08-30-2015 at 06:48 PM.

[imtheguy]

My first thought is you are viewing a much larger and uncompressed version on your monitor. I do not know the compression factor used for storage on PF but pics never look as good as if I posted with my ISP. Besides the compression, this uploaded version is 62KB, how large is the one your are comparing it too? May be a lot of information left out from the original.

edit - Hey Jacque, have not seen your reservation yet for vacation here at the beach so you can take "our" A*400/2.8 on Safari. Or have you forgotten??

[timo4352]

Im certainly no expert, but I'd say the file size is way too small also...
The max using the "manage attachments" here is 700kb. Still much larger than your posting...
I'd suggest posting the larger files (5MB or whatever) somewhere like Flickr and linking them to your post here.
Works for me...
Tim

[imtheguy]

I'd suggest posting the larger files (5MB or whatever) somewhere like Flickr and linking them to your post here.
Works for me...
Tim

My experience with the free Flickr account is that it has its own compression and display issues, worse than PF. Especially the extra saturation they add or at least it appears that way. If you have the paid Flickr account and are seeing good quality then its time for me to check that out also.

[Adam]

If you want entirely uncompressed photos, please use the user photo gallery.

The attachment system only attempts to compress if the filesize or dimensions exceed the maximum limit; otherwise no compression is made and quality is preserved.

For web viewing purposes, I recommend an 11-quality, 900-pixel jpeg. That should look perfect on the forum

Regarding the image itself- great capture of the duck's expression, but I feel like there is too much negative space. Also, you typically want to avoid shooting pairs (although it would seem appropriate in this case).

[jpzk]

My first thought is you are viewing a much larger and uncompressed version on your monitor. I do not know the compression factor used for storage on PF but pics never look as good as if I posted with my ISP. Besides the compression, this uploaded version is 62KB, how large is the one your are comparing it too? May be a lot of information left out from the original.

edit - Hey Jacque, have not seen your reservation yet for vacation here at the beach so you can take "our" A*400/2.8 on Safari. Or have you forgotten??

Hi Lee!

I don't quite get it: you say this uploaded pic is only 62K whereas I uploaded this "attachment" direct from a resized version of 516K, and 1000 x 665 pixels, 72dpi.
The one I am presently looking at from my monitor is a 2.52 Mb file; that is a very detailed and contrasty image too.

So, I did in fact forget about my reservations for a vacation but now that you have refreshed my memory, I am going to "post-a-post-it" on my monitor!
Thanks for the reminder and the reply.

JP

[jpzk]

Im certainly no expert, but I'd say the file size is way too small also...
The max using the "manage attachments" here is 700kb. Still much larger than your posting...
I'd suggest posting the larger files (5MB or whatever) somewhere like Flickr and linking them to your post here.
Works for me...
Tim

I have, several months ago, tried Flicker and other such hosting sites but I find them rather annoyingly time consuming.
For that reason, I just post direct from my computer files.
I though that "resizing" the image at 1000 pixels at the widest side, then saving as "save for Web and devices" (in Photoshop) would be ideal to attatch, but that seems to be degrading the quality of the picture.
Now, I'm going to check Adam's reply below, and see what I can do about that.
Thanks!

JP

[jpzk]

If you want entirely uncompressed photos, please use the user photo gallery.

The attachment system only attempts to compress if the filesize or dimensions exceed the maximum limit; otherwise no compression is made and quality is preserved.

For web viewing purposes, I recommend an 11-quality, 900-pixel jpeg. That should look perfect on the forum

Regarding the image itself- great capture of the duck's expression, but I feel like there is too much negative space. Also, you typically want to avoid shooting pairs (although it would seem appropriate in this case).

Adam,

I though that "resizing" the image at 1000 pixels at the widest side, then saving as "save for Web and devices" (in Photoshop) would be ideal to attach, but that seems to be degrading the quality of the picture.
You suggest using the "user photo gallery" ... would that be the same process (file-size-wise) as using the photos in the "Albums"?
So, if I am going to just upload the 2.52 Mb file instead (as I mentioned to Lee above) that should be better ... let me go try that now.
Thanks for the critique.
Indeed, a bit much empty space in front of the birds. I like keeping that sort of space to give an idea that the birds are moving right to left, though perhaps here there was too much.
I have lots of photos of birds "single" ... why then is it not "typical" to have a pair (couple) ?
Thanks for the reply!

JP

[Adam]

For the same reason you don't buy a bouquet of 4 flowers (or any other even number), I suppose.

The user photo gallery has no resolution limit, but it has a filesize limit of 1.45 Mb, I believe. It can therefore be used for much larger, uncompressed files, but if you'd like to upload originals, I recommend a different type of web storage (or you can zip up the image to a zip).

And yes, save for web is by default set to use jpeg 6, which significantly kills the quality. Never do this for jpegs!

If you'd like to have high-quality photos in your attachments, just resize to a 900-pixel width and save it normally, with 10 or 11 as the JPEG quality. You won't go over 700Kb.

[jpzk]

So, what I did was upload this attatchment direct from "My Albums" and that seems to be a bit better:

[jpzk]

Cropped version of the above photo:

[jpzk]

For the same reason you don't buy a bouquet of 4 flowers (or any other even number), I suppose.

The user photo gallery has no resolution limit, but it has a filesize limit of 1.45 Mb, I believe. It can therefore be used for much larger, uncompressed files, but if you'd like to upload originals, I recommend a different type of web storage (or you can zip up the image to a zip).

And yes, save for web is by default set to use jpeg 6, which significantly kills the quality. Never do this for jpegs!

If you'd like to have high-quality photos in your attachments, just resize to a 900-pixel width and save it normally, with 10 or 11 as the JPEG quality. You won't go over 700Kb.

Ah ... I see what you mean about "pairs"! That would be the "best" way to present "things" I suppose. Now, because these ducks were representing a "couple" ...
I took that same pic, reloaded it from "My Albums" and it seems better IQ-wise. It is still at 1000 X 656 pixels, but only 532K. However, now the quality is adequate, I would think.
I will remember from now on not to resize for the Web, and thank you for the reply again.

Cheers.

JP

[imtheguy]

So, what I did was upload this attatchment direct from "My Albums" and that seems to be a bit better:

Looks more than "a bit" better from here. You have the magic now and so do I.

Adam, thanks for chiming in and educating us ignorant masses, speaking for myself only.

[Adam]

Glad to hear that! The updated version of the photo not only looks (perfect) uncompressed quality-wise, but it also has a much better composition.

Had you snapped the ducks half a foot ahead of where they were in the photo, the composition would have been nearly idea, with a angle from the ducks to the rock being about the same as that from corner to corner.

[jpzk]

Looks more than "a bit" better from here. You have the magic now and so do I.

Adam, thanks for chiming in and educating us ignorant masses, speaking for myself only.

Amazing how little technical details can make such a difference.
Magic being such a big word ... let's just say that I am very pleased to find nearly 100% of my queries being answered right here on this forum, athat is magic!

JP