NZDavid Posted November 26, 2009 Share #1 Â Posted November 26, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) Not aesthetic but technical! After posting pictures it looks like they have been shot with a fog filter. But they look absolutely sharp and clear onscreen before posting. Why? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted November 26, 2009 Posted November 26, 2009 Hi NZDavid, Take a look here Posting pictures - quality. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
andybarton Posted November 26, 2009 Share #2 Â Posted November 26, 2009 Are you posting the photographs in accordance eith the Forum rules? Â i.e. 960 px max length, 293kb max file size? sRGB jpg. I believe that if you try yo post a file that's way too big, the forum software will shrink it right down. Â I have no problems with the image quality when I upload. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 26, 2009 Author Share #3 Â Posted November 26, 2009 Thanks Andy, yes, under 293kb, I'll check the other specs. I'm viewing with Safari; I'll also have another look in Firefox. Cheers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted November 27, 2009 Share #4 Â Posted November 27, 2009 Ensure that you convert your images to sRGB before posting also. What looks fine in your image program can be horrible in web browsers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 27, 2009 Share #5 Â Posted November 27, 2009 Unless it's Safari or a tweaked Firefox, which are colour managed. Safari will display tiffs, as well as jpgs, if you want it to. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted November 27, 2009 Share #6 Â Posted November 27, 2009 Which is fine Andy if you only want to show your web images to people with those browsers Now if we could only visit everyone's houses and calibrate their monitors as well Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 27, 2009 Share #7 Â Posted November 27, 2009 Advertisement (gone after registration) I was just saying that there are more sophisticated browsers out there than the "big one" Â The point about calibration is a very good one. I have no idea at all what my shots look like when they are viewed on your screen, in your office/house. I had endless arguments with an old member who no longer posts here, about my shots being too dark. He used/uses Windows and claimed to have a calibrated monitor. Given that this monitor was 3000+ miles away, I had no way of knowing what he was seeing. Or indeed what he thought HIS shots should look like. Â But, the shots look fine on MY calibrated monitor, they look fine when they are printed and they look fine when they are on my wall. At the end of the day, that's all I want, really. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted November 27, 2009 Share #8 Â Posted November 27, 2009 Thanks Andy, yes, under 293kb, I'll check the other specs. I'm viewing with Safari; I'll also have another look in Firefox. Cheers. Â I think I know which recent posts of yours you refer to. Those really look terrible, but they're way smaller than the allowed 293 kB. I assumed that you uploaded larger files which then were shrunk by the forum software. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
hoppyman Posted November 27, 2009 Share #9 Â Posted November 27, 2009 I just went and found the recent photos from David too. I agree that they look soft and overly smoothed, perhaps from over compression (gallery software??). Colour/white balance and exposure seem fine. These remind me of scanned slides?? Somewhat contrasty? EDIT. David you aren't scanning prints are you??????? Â David, can you recall/describe your method to make these versions? Â Take one of your original larger files and size it to 600x900 pixels (for example) and save as jpg. Adjust compression in the save as dialog until within the allowable file size. Convert to sRGB (I don't see any problem there from those South Island examples here though). Better to give the file a new name too so you don't accidentally upload the originals instead. Of course make sure you don't save the changes to your original files. Use Save As. Upload those new versions and post a link for everyone. Â Give that a try and let us know how you go? There are some other refinements possible too but get the basics sorted out to your satisfaction then we can chat further here:) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 28, 2009 Author Share #10 Â Posted November 28, 2009 Thanks for the advice. Yes, they are scanned slides @ 18MB, resized using Graphic Converter for Mac to approx. 290KB. They display just fine on my screen but, as agreed, look horrible when posted on the forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 28, 2009 Author Share #11 Â Posted November 28, 2009 I'm told the posted size was only 40kb. Don't understand it at all -- I resized them to 290kb each. No idea how to change them. But thanks all for your help in any case. I'll give it one more go. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted November 28, 2009 Share #12  Posted November 28, 2009 It will be something to do with GraphicConverter, I suspect. I no longer have a copy, so can't experiment myself  using a "test" thread to experiment with, try a file at a max pixel size of 640 and a max file size of 200kb (you need to adjust the jpg compression to get it where you want it on the final size image)  if that displays OK, wind up the dimensions and file size. I can delete the test thread for you later Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share #13 Â Posted November 29, 2009 Thanks again Andy, it may well be GraphicConverter and the very slow upload speed (up to a minute to attach an image), which I can't change. But it's odd, because when I posted pics a year ago or so they looked better! Â I've tried resizing a few times to 200KB and even above. The strange thing is that the forum software shrinks them all right down. Even if I simply click on the 18MB maximum size originals they end up at under 200KB and still don't look so hot. I'll try a few more and see. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NZDavid Posted November 29, 2009 Author Share #14 Â Posted November 29, 2009 Once more unto the breach! I tried a test post. In Graphic Converter I resized the original to 8 x 5.22" = 576 x 376 pixels, then compressed slightly to 196.2KB. I then clicked the paperclip, not "manage attachments". The result is a lot better, and the software didn't shrink it right down this time. Then I tried using "manage attachments" not the paperclip, and the result was the same. So the problem must have been the initial resizing. Thanks for your patience. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted December 16, 2009 Share #15 Â Posted December 16, 2009 I just uploaded some shots to the forum, all came out just as sharp as they look in PSE. I have just tried to upload another one, which looks pin-sharp, even when reduced for the forum on PSE, yet no matter what I do it looks blurred all over when uploaded. I 've tried re-saving it, making another copy from the original but each time the same result. Â Any ideas? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
robert_parker Posted December 16, 2009 Share #16  Posted December 16, 2009 I just uploaded some shots to the forum, all came out just as sharp as they look in PSE. I have just tried to upload another one, which looks pin-sharp, even when reduced for the forum on PSE, yet no matter what I do it looks blurred all over when uploaded. I 've tried re-saving it, making another copy from the original but each time the same result. Any ideas?  Hello Pete - Is the last one by any chance a scanned image, whereas the others came from a digital camera ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
rob_x2004 Posted December 17, 2009 Share #17 Â Posted December 17, 2009 Pete if you dont rename the file you upload, and you dont use the manage attachments to remove the old upload in addition to removing the attachment text from the reply it sometimes hooks the old file. I dont know why, but I have found you have to be pretty thorough in deleting stuff, it could be a forum/browser/cashe thingy. Did you check the file properties of the new upload agaisnt the old? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 17, 2009 Share #18 Â Posted December 17, 2009 Pete - give me a link to the shots and I will have a look at them for you. I suspect that the file size of the last one was too big and the software here has shrunk it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
elansprint72 Posted December 18, 2009 Share #19 Â Posted December 18, 2009 Sorted- Andy sussed the problem; I had inadvertently moved the "Quality" slider over to maximum when messing with another image, and there it stays unless it is moved back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted December 20, 2009 Share #20 Â Posted December 20, 2009 Happy to help Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.