Began putting up a few new pics yesterday, and noticed that the quality is pretty bad in many of them post-up-load (but not all of them); is there something I can do on my end in 'Shop or with the resolution to make the quality better match the originals - ? The file size pre- and post- is the same, but clearly something is being lost in translation

Thanks!

what file format are you using? jpg? can you post a link so we can look at it?

this shot is probably the worst offender; looks crisp on my screen in PS before uploading (yes, all jpg) :

http://images.summitpost.org/original/804369.JPG

Thanks!

Shots, like that one, that show a large gradation of tones (such as the various shades of white) are the most vulnerable to high J-peg compression. For shots like that you want to be sure and keep the j-peg quality level high.

Buz Groshong wrote:Shots, like that one, that show a large gradation of tones (such as the various shades of white) are the most vulnerable to high J-peg compression. For shots like that you want to be sure and keep the j-peg quality level high.

But Buz ... HOW do you keep the j-peg level high ?

The same thing happened on one of my recent pics from AK ...



http://www.summitpost.org/dragonback-in-the-outback/804481/c-248612

sharperblue wrote:The file size pre- and post- is the same, but clearly something is being lost in translation

The same, in megabytes?

Uploading it should not change the compression - unless SP runs it through a program to reduce file size before saving it.

can't figure it out either - same file size and type before and after uploading, and no consistency of whether or not the problem recurs from one pic to the next. think i'll ju8st live with it, but was curious if I were committing some unknown but common graphic blasphemy. thx anyway gents

It looks pretty clear to me. Comes back as 93% quality, subsampling off, 1.67 MB. Have you tried viewing it with different browsers?

Maybe if you download the picture to another website, we can judge the difference.

Hi Matt! Might we have any changes/improvements to SP anytime soon?

MoapaPk wrote:It looks pretty clear to me. Comes back as 93% quality, subsampling off, 1.67 MB. Have you tried viewing it with different browsers?

Maybe if you download the picture to another website, we can judge the difference.

Looks good unless I zoom in. Then looks like a sharpness/shake issue (loss of line sharpness) hard to tell though without seeing the original. Can you upload to another site so we can compare?

You mentioned PS which I assume you mean Photoshop. Last year I started experimenting with Photoshop and posted the photos on SP. The quality was indeed reduced! Even the original had pixels and saturation that did not exist before I posted it. So it turns out that Photoshop adds something to the photo. So I do something I call "Photo Laundering" where I use Picasa 3, do a slight edit (that actually does nothing) and it takes off the PS data which fixes the problem when I reupload the photo to SP!

Weird, but it works. There is some sort of processing from what I understand.