Optimizing Posted Image Quality

[john1027]

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.

 

[Streetshooter]

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.

 

[Amin Sabet]

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:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Same photo viewed at Smugmug looks identical to me: http://aminsabet.smugmug.com/photos/706654718_cURgv-O-1.jpg

 

[Bokeh Diem]

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

 

[Jonas B]

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.

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

 

[Streetshooter]

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

 

[Jonas B]

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

 

[BBW]

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.

 

[john1027]

Thanks everyone for the suggestions. I'll try some fine tuning and see where that gets me.

 

[cosinaphile]

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

 

[john1027]

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:

 

[Auntiepode]

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.

 

[BBW]

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/