Does this image looks posterized?

[MilT0s]

Lately my images look awful when I upload them to zenfolio, mainly those with intense/saturated colors. The originals look ok on my monitor. The problem appears when viewing them at the zenfolio site and when I download the images back to my HDD.

The colorspace is sRGB/8bit with the longest dimension being between 1000 and 1800 pixels. How does it look on your monitor? Any help is appreciated.

[Shadowman]

Looks fine to me.

[Stagecoach]

Miltos,

There is certainly something visible in the upper sky area. The top left appears to be affected most with what are diagonal artefacts ?

It is only a 141 kb image ?

Try posting another at a higher res, say 300K so we can compare them

[MilT0s]

Thank you both for your replies.

Grahame, this is a 1000px version but the artifacts are there for other resolutions and save as different jpg conversion qualities (8 and 10).

I am totally confused...

[Stagecoach]

Miltos,

I'm sure the 'more knowledgeable' will have the answers but looking at the Exif of this image, 1/2000th, f7,8, ISO 1600 is it possibly noise related ?

[MilT0s]

Grahame the images look fine prior to uploading to zenfolio (in sRGB) so I think it's neither a shooting settings of PP problem but a conversion one.

[Stagecoach]

Miltos,

Ok, so my next question would be is the image posted here as 'poor' (as affected) as the one you have uploaded to Zenfolio ?

What method have you used to post here ? I have always used the 'Tinypics' method at between 1000 to 1200 pix width and kept the res at around 300k and been very pleased with the quality.

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Miltos,

I took a look at the EXIF data; Nikon Coolpix P310, 17.9mm (= 90mm FFE), 1/2000s, f/7.8 (= f/40 FFE), iso 1600, P mode with - 1.7 stops EC.

I believe I am correct in thinking that the P310 only shoots jpg.

I then took a closer look at the EXIF, the software history shows LR5, followed by CS6 x 3, LR5 x 2 and these happened over 3 differently timed editing sessions.

It does look like you opened from a Tiff for each session, which is good news - because repeated saves and re-opens for editing of jpgs are VERY bad news for image quality.

I do wonder whether the high iso, small sensor, possible under exposure corrected in PP, possible white balance correction applied in PP, have all combined to (after the final jpg save), cause the issues you see.

Your choice of browser to view the images may also have some bearing on what you see - I use Firefox and do not see too much of a problem with posterisation.

Hope that helps,

[MilT0s]

What a mess....

I don't understand why you don't see it Dave.

It's not a camera settings issue I think.

I have a jpg that looks fine in PS, LR, firefoxn IE and windows photo viewer.
I upload it to zenfolio, I download it (or view it) from there and it looks awful. I even tried the save for web option in photoshop. It looks to me that zenfolio do something to the file.

Anyway thank you for your help.

[Dave Humphries]

I have a jpg that looks fine in PS, LR, firefoxn IE and windows photo viewer.
I upload it to zenfolio, I download it (or view it) from there and it looks awful. I even tried the save for web option in photoshop. It looks to me that zenfolio do something to the file.

Anyway thank you for your help.

I don't know how Zenfolio works, but unless you upload at and view at the same resolution, they must be doing something!

e.g. if you upload a full size image, then view one that's smaller, that may well explain it, but from what you said earlier, I don't think that is the case, I think you did downsize, then upload.

Unfortunately, as I can't see the problem at the moment, I'm not sure I am much help.

[DanK]

It looks to me that zenfolio do something to the file.

upload it at the same size and with identical settings to another site, like Flickr, and compare using the same browser. that should tell you whether the problem is specific to Zenfolio.

[Mike Buckley]

The image looks fine to me using Firefox. While it's possible that there is some posterization in the upper areas of the sky, it could also be "texture" (for lack of a better word) in the sky. Regardless, whatever I'm seeing is not unattractive in the slightest. That's fortunate because this is such a nice image.

between 1000 and 1800 pixels.

Consider looking into that detail. I still create all of my photos intended for posting on the Internet at no larger than 900 pixels on the longest side. That's because the first web site where I began posting altered any images larger than that.

Also consider contacting Zenfolio's support.