Aaarrrghh!!

[Stagecoach]

Andrew, comparing this latest one (resized to 500Kb) with your original post (not Johns re-post) there's a big difference in exposure/brightness/contrast which could be confusing conclusions.

Grahame

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Andrew,

does this mean that Tinypic is making my high res images look like crap?

Yes, but it's your fault

Let me explain that before you sue me (or worse )

The original obviously contains sharpened noise.

I don't use LR either, but;
I don't trust ACR to sharpen ANYTHING, the radius is too wide at 0.5 (minimum) or 1 px (default)
The Bicubic Sharper method of downsizing also uses too wide a radius and can put halos on, so I don't trust that either!

My recommended method is in Post #6 of the HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?

That gives a process that works, there are several seemingly insignificant things in it that are important, (as is the order you do things) so please do what it says - and then you should be able to sleep at night

i.e. there is a big difference between 0.3px and 0.5px, the latter won't do!

Bear in mind they weren't written for LR3/4 though, so you may have to adapt a little or get something that sharpens at 0.3px.

One last thing - this is a portrait orientation shot, most screens are landscape orientation, so their size will be about 1920 w x 1080 h, or 1680 w x 1050 h - this means you should downsize to no more than 1000px tall, in fact 850 to 900px is safer still to account for people that don't hit F11 on their keyboard to get rid of the browser banner while viewing pictures.

If you downsize to 1600 tall, everyone will view it with a degree of browser downsizing to fit their screen, which immediately throws away most of your sharpness. Or they can see it sharp, but have to scroll up and down to see it all - sort of defeats the object, eh?

If the height is not an issue (e.g. a shot is landscape orientation), then go for 1600px wide (but not 1601, or TinyPic will soften it for you when they make it 1599px) - as long as you don't ever exceed the 1000px tall rule.

The aim of all the advice I give is to ensure that you sharpen the final image at 100%,
i.e. 1 image pixel = 1 screen pixel and that's why you must downsize it, then sharpen it - and further that you present it so your audience here also see it at 100% in the Lytebox.

Good luck,

[Andrew76]

Well that was informative!! Thanks Dave! I'm going to try a few things - please bear with me!

[Andrew76]

One more test....

[Andrew76]

[Andrew76]

One more little test....

[Stagecoach]

Hi Andrew, as per your PM I have had a look at the bee pic in post No 25 and make the following observations/comments.

Firstly I'm no expert but understand your desire to have posted pics especially of macro subjects with the best IQ you can achieve confidently and repeatedly that match what you see before uploading so am happy to assist in this.

I'm not sure how the original PPd version before uploading shows on your monitor but to me viewed on CIC it seemed flat and I suspected this is not quite how you would have expected it to look.

I then opened the file in PSE7 which then reveals increased saturation, brightness, contrast and sharpness how I would suspect you would have wanted it. This improvement was also the same when opened in Windows picture viewer.

So my conclusion so far is that there is certainly an obvious difference between whether I view the file in CIC or opened separately in PSE on my monitor.

On another site I belong to I found that to get almost identical IQ between what I saw on my monotor compared to the uploaded pic on the site I had to increase both brightness and contrast by approx 10 to 15 percent at the same time as final sharpening after re-sizing before saving as jpg before uploading.

Hope the above assists.

Grahame

[Andrew76]

I then opened the file in PSE7 which then reveals increased saturation, brightness, contrast and sharpness how I would suspect you would have wanted it. This improvement was also the same when opened in Windows picture viewer.

So my conclusion so far is that there is certainly an obvious difference between whether I view the file in CIC or opened separately in PSE on my monitor.
Grahame

Thank you. I am glad I'm not going mad. So, I will try some of the suggestions that Dave made with regards to uploading. My issues must lie somewhere in there.

Thanks again for your time Grahame.

[DanK]

Folks,

I think there is a simpler solution. But first, I don't work for Smugmug, and I don't know anyone who does.

I use Smugmug as my primary hosting service. I have been posting links from their site to this one and to several others for years--mostly posting macros--without ever encountering Andrew's problem. Or at least I didn't notice it. With this post, I will do a test. For what it is worth, I'll explain my method, and then I will post a couple of macros using it, along with the links. This will prompt me to make an A/B comparison and will allow anyone else to do so.

I upload all of my images from Lightroom, even if I edit them in something else. I use Jeffry Friedl's plug-ins for this, but I don't think that matters for this discussion. When I upload to Flickr, I constrain the maximum dimension in the export dialog to 1000 pixels, at the suggestion of the moderator of a site I use. When I upload to Smugmug, however, I don't constrain size at all. I upload a full-size jpg and let Smugmug's server resize as needed.

When you request a link from Smugmug, it gives you a choice of sizes. These have only names, like "large," not dimensions. I generally choose "large" for this site, "extra large" for Dgrin, which is actually hosted by Smugmug.

That's all I do.

Now, to test it, I am going to post two macros, using the "large" setting. Before each, I will post the actual link, but to the "extra large" size, which is the largest I currently allow Smugmug to display for those galleries.

OK, here is the test. [Edit: I just came back to the post, and it looks OK to me. If you want to see them on Smugmug's site, my site is http://dkoretz.smugmug.com, and the galleries are "flowers" and "other bugs, and spiders". Sorry, I have not done housecleaning in a while, so you have to wade through a few pages for the second.]

Dan

http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Flowers/F...5701-ZS-XL.jpg



http://dkoretz.smugmug.com/Bugs/Bugs...6_Asx6N-XL.jpg

[Andrew76]

Thanks Dan. That has helped me immensely. I have been pondering the idea of setting up an account with an online hosting sites for weeks now, and this just cements my concerns.

I really appreciate everyone's help with this, it has been more frustrating for me than anything else for a while.

What I'm going to do, is set up an account today, upload some of my existing photos, and repost them here. I think that is my first, most logical step.

I'll be back later!!

[Stagecoach]

Andrew, It will be interesting to see your results and conclusions, please keep us informed. For info I opened the posted pics by Dan in both PSE and Windows viewer side by side with the CIC page and they were all identical (as far as I can see). I then again did the same with your pic in post 25 and its clearly flat in CIC compared to it opened in PSE. Confusing ?

Just a thought, are you saving your image once PPd then downsized in the srgb format ?

Grahame

[Andrew76]

I will post some photos as soon as I can come up with something good! As I am the proud new owner of a Smugmug site.

And in answer to your last question, no, I just checked, and apparently I'm saving them from LR in Pro Photo RGB.

[Andrew76]

This is my first post from Smugmug - to clarify a few variables, this image was taken RAW, edited in LR4, and exported directly to my desktop without downsizing or adjusting anything - the final size was about 10.5MB I think. I switched my colour space for export to sRGB from Pro Photo RGB, and then uploaded directly to a miscellaneous album in Smugmug. I then 'requested a link' as Dan had suggested (by the way, this whole process with Smugmug is quite simple - even for me - an I don't work for them either!!), and chose 'Large', as per his suggestion. I then copied the link here - and voila. Did it work?

http://backup.cambridgeincolour.com/...ter-Drop-L.jpg

It did, but I didn't get my image to display on the forum, like Dan did above. Hmmm.



Aaah - figured it out.

[Andrew76]

This photo looks identical to the image I have in LR, and online at Smugmug. AND, I am happy.

I know it's not the best photo in the world, but I believe I've maintained a little focus, sharpness, and the colours are bang on. I think....

[Stagecoach]

Andrew, Pleased you got the results you were after. Also now identical to me when viewed in either CIC, PSE and Win Pix viewer.

[Andrew76]

Thanks Grahame, I appreciate your time and help. Still not sure what happened, I've been uploading photos here for over a year. But I honestly don't care! I'm happy with this new process.

Thanks again!

[xpatUSA]

And in answer to your last question, no, I just checked, and apparently I'm saving them from LR in Pro Photo RGB.

it's that rendition thing - for example, Google Chrome:



Left to Right: sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto.

[Dave Humphries]

it's that rendition thing - for example, Google Chrome:



Left to Right: sRGB, Adobe RGB, ProPhoto.

Absolutely!

Hi Andrew,

Since ProPhoto is a gamut beyond what most people's monitors can display and, as demonstrated by Ted, most browsers don't display them right either, for web use, you really should be exporting as sRGB because that works for "all of the people all of the time".

My browser (Firefox) does display ProPhoto correctly, so I wasn't aware of this aspect to your problem. My monitor still can't display them correctly, but the difference is way less than the saturation differences in Ted's screen shot.

Cheers,

[Andrew76]

Thanks Ted, and Dave. Seems like a newbie mistake - not sure how I overlooked it. My original intention with Project 52 (which I never followed through with, and am very disappointed in myself) was to take a step back, and go through some of the basics of photography as I felt I had rushed my progression, and was overlooking some critical steps.

It appears that since this is such a multifaceted activity, I've done the same thing with some of the other aspects as well. Disappointing, but a good learning experience.

I would like to thank everyone here who's taken the time to try and help me sort this out - it says a lot about people who will spend their own time to help out someone else that they've never even met. Thanks!

[Dave Humphries]

I would like to thank everyone here who's taken the time to try and help me sort this out - it says a lot about people who will spend their own time to help out someone else that they've never even met. Thanks!

What!!!
You don't remember our meeting?
Now I am offended

Only kidding Andrew.


No worries - I suspect everyone else is like me, they get a nice warm feeling inside just by helping someone and CiC attracts the kind of people that like to help and be helped, so it's win-win.

Glad to help,