Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Site information' started by datagov, Nov 19, 2015.
don't know what kind of compression is being used but IQ is just not as sharp as it used to be.
Attachments or embedded images?
This site does not alter embedded images at all.
Flickr is using more compression now. Maybe that is what you are noticing?
"IQ on this site is not what it used to be"
From the title I assumed you thought the average members intelligence was dropping.
That was my first thought as well
I do my best to bring everyone down a notch or two ;-)
Attached photos used to look super sharp here. Maybe my eyes are bad, but the sharpness isn't what it used to be. IMHO.
I've not changed anything about the attachments recently.
My IQ is definitely not what it used to be. :-O
I agree, there have been a lot of really terrible photos posted in the last few months. Maybe there should be like a site counsel that approves all photos before they are available for public viewing?
Where is the "not useful" symbol?
another reason why I have always hated that ambiguous meaningless shorthand that people on photo forums use.
Datagov... explain what you mean and don't use lazy acronyms
I can't say if it's only a recent thing, but I have RECENTLY NOTICED that my embeds from Flickr seem to lose some pixel quality. Fine detail gets much softer.
Compare, for example, this embed to this higher-quality version on Flickr. The detail in Sutro Tower is much sharper in the "lightbox" version.
And to be clear, it's nothing to do with the mu-43.com forum software -- it's in Flickr's compression algorithm. I don't know if anything's changed with Flickr, or if I just recently noticed it.
I'm hosting through Google Photo, seems to be holding up when it comes to detail.
I find that what my photos have lost in IQ they've gained in Emotional Intelligence.
just fired up a recently posted image with what i would regard as fine detail, in its 3 iterations (Aperture, Flickr and this site) on my 27inch imac
If anything the original in Aperture looks softer... but thats maybe just scaling issues
not seeing anything that is a deal breaker here... maybe I just have bad taste and lower standards
Kevin, I noticed the same issue a while back - the same pictures on Flickr look much better with lots more detail - especially foliage.