1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Optimizing Posted Image Quality

Discussion in 'Creative Corner' started by john1027, Jun 19, 2010.

  1. john1027

    john1027 Mu-43 Veteran

    305
    Mar 5, 2010
    Alexandria, VA USA
    I upload pictures to my gallery here and also link to my galleries at SmugMug, which I use to post to various threads. No matter which way I chose, the posted pictures and those uploaded to my gallery are never quite as vivid as the originals on my computer in Aperture or on my SmugMug site.

    Are there any suggestions on what I can do to preserve the vivid colors and to generally optimize the images for posting? Perhaps it is best to save the image manually in a certain format/size before uploading vs. letting the size be set automatically?

    Anything suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  2. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    John,
    What I do is make the image 9" x 12" x 72 pp.
    Even then there is always some degradation but not to bad.
     
  3. Amin Sabet

    Amin Sabet Administrator

    Apr 10, 2009
    Boston, MA (USA)
    John, if you take a photo hosted at Smugmug and embed here in a forum post, it should look identical in both places unless you are using two different browsers to view and one isn't color managed. The forum software doesn't touch the color on images which are hosted elsewhere (eg, Smugmug, Flickr). Could you link us to a photo of yours at Smugmug and embed the same image in this thread for comparison?

    This photo is hosted in my Smugmug and embedded here using the IMG tags:

    [​IMG]

    Same photo viewed at Smugmug looks identical to me: http://aminsabet.smugmug.com/photos/706654718_cURgv-O-1.jpg
     
    • Like Like x 1
  4. Bokeh Diem

    Bokeh Diem Mu-43 Top Veteran

    655
    Mar 14, 2010
    Toronto
    John, I believe you have some interference going on. Photos as viewed on my computer at the same res as I post to the Forum look identical after I put them up here.

    I post images 1024 (long side) at around 400K for simple presentation in threads here, and also upload full 4-8mg jpeg shots into my Gallery on the mu-Forum, and no difference is noticed.

    Bokeh D
     
  5. Jonas B

    Jonas B Guest

    91
    Apr 23, 2010
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    Hi,
    As we are talking about showing images on screen here your recipe is more or less useless. It is way better to say 800x600 pixels or 1200x900 pixels, for example. Then add that a reasonably size is about 200 or 300 kB (pick a suitable ratio of JPG compression), that sharpening should be the last step in PP before uploading and that it's a good idea to make sure the JPG is an sRGB image.

    The 9" x 12" x 72pp is just some good information for a printer guy (or driver), it has bothing to do with monitors.

    regards,

    Jonas
     
  6. Streetshooter

    Streetshooter Administrator Emeritus

    Dec 15, 2009
    Phila, Pa USA
    Jonas,
    I didn't say I did it right, just that I did it that way.
    You are right and Amin has told me this a few times already....
    I'll try your way later tonight to see what happens...
    Thanks,
    don
     
  7. Jonas B

    Jonas B Guest

    91
    Apr 23, 2010
    Gothenburg, Sweden
    OK, Don, you didn't say you did it right.
    You'll probably get a similar result to what you usually get, it depends on what software you are using.
    If we speak about pixels we all know what we get, whatever software we use, every time.

    regards,

    Jonas
     
  8. BBW

    BBW Super Moderator Emeritus

    John, I use Aperture 3 also, post to Flickr and then embed here and I don't see any difference at all. I'm on a 2006 MacBook Pro. When I use the gallery, I export from Aperture 3 to my desktop and then upload into the gallery and those look the same to me, too.
     
  9. john1027

    john1027 Mu-43 Veteran

    305
    Mar 5, 2010
    Alexandria, VA USA
    Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'll try some fine tuning and see where that gets me.
     
  10. cosinaphile

    cosinaphile Mu-43 All-Pro

    Dec 26, 2009
    new york city
    i save a copy of my image resized in elements as xpixel by x pixels saved as a med jpeg or better , the program tells me the size and most fall between 200 and 600 k which for monitor display here , i think looks pretty good
    mostly i save 1200 by 900 or smaller ...when im showing a small drawing , for instance ,i will often try to approximate its actual dimensions on my monitor and hope it approximates what other see more or less for instance a drawing on a 5x7 or 5x8 pad is good at 600 to 800 pixels wide in landscape orientation , not exact but it in not enlarged in a misleading way

    i think it helps to think how one would display an image as a print [ below 12x 16 or so!]
    and use that as a guide for display on a monitor

    most prints look good at 200 -300 dpi but for monitors 75 dpi gives a similar impression , me thinks
     
  11. john1027

    john1027 Mu-43 Veteran

    305
    Mar 5, 2010
    Alexandria, VA USA
    Thanks cosinaphile.

    I just posted a new image to one of Herman's threads by saving the file first under the specs Bokeh Diem suggested. I think where I was causing issues for myself was by going directly to my Aperture library and tagging a file for upload without re-sizing first. That resulted in a version that had way too many pixels for the web from what has been suggested here. The end result was an image that just didn't look as clear on the forum as the one I was actually seeing on my computer. Anyway, with everyone's help I think I'm back on track.:smile:
     
  12. Auntiepode

    Auntiepode Mu-43 Regular

    Most of the images I've posted here have been sized using the PS Save for the Web option at 800 pixels. However, this thread raises a question. Saving them for the web eliminates the color space information and EXIF data. Although I use the SRGB color space, ought I use a more conventional PS save and include the color space and other EXIF data despite the larger file size? Firefox ought to default them to sRGB, but I'm uncertain how the color will display in other browsers.
     
  13. BBW

    BBW Super Moderator Emeritus

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.