Optimizing Posted Image Quality

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.

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

photo size for posting

Here's an older thread that might be helpful/worthwhile to read: https://www.mu-43.com/f64/photo-size-2247/