Large vs small size smugmug post

[rpcrowe]

I uploaded two versions of the same image to smugmug.com and then linked each to CIC. I wanted to see the difference.

First is 800x800 pixels. I uploaded the image at 72 PPI


This one is 3136x3136 pixels. I uploaded the image at 240 PPI


Full size output sharpening with unsharp mask output 50%, Radius 1,0, Threshold 0


Full size with output sharpening high detail - high pass with Genuine Fractals in Perfect Resize 8


Small size with reduction and sharpening using Perfect resize 8


I don't seem to see any great differences on my monitor; do you?

[Donald]

I'm not seeing any difference whatsoever.

[IzzieK]

Hear..hear...me either.

[DanK]

Richard,

I think that whatever you do with the image, it will be reduced to the same resolution (I think 72 ppi, but someone can correct me) and whatever the size limit on this site is when you post it.

For this reason, when I post here, I just pick a link for "extra large" from smugmug and let this system resize it. This seems to work fine.

Dan

[rpcrowe]

Donald and Izzie... Thanks, I don't see any difference either.

Dan... I do pick the large link from smugmug.com. I was experimenting with different sizes and resolutions of images to upload to smugmug.com. I wanted to see if there was any great difference between uploading a 72 PPI image 800 pixels square (177.28 KB in size) and a 240 PPI image that is 3170 pixels wide (1.98 MB in size).

Since there appears to be no difference in the posted size or quality, I will continue to post my images on smugmug.com at 72 PPI and 800 pixels in width. The upload of multiple images is quite faster that way!

In the next three images, I have selected the 72 PPI image at 800 pixels wide and posted it at BBCode-small embeddable link...


BBCode medium embeddable link...


And BBCode Large embeddable link...


There is definitely a difference in posting size...

BTW: my subject is Sally Ann a pure-bred young Maltese rescue. We seldom get small pure-bred, female Maltese into our rescue. Just as we don't often get rescue dogs from shelters who are in as nice condition as Sally Ann when we received her.

Sally was quite clean and her coat was in very good shape and needed just a bit of brushing and trimming...



She is estimated (by our vet) to be between five and six months old. She is a vibrant and loving little girl but, doesn't have the faintest idea about house training. Perhaps, that is the reason she was dumped into the shelter. This happens all too often! People want cute little puppies but don't bargain for the house training learning curve. Then, when they realize that the cute little puppy will deposit its waste indiscriminately, they decide to get rid of the puppy instead of working to train it. Of course, it is easier for my wife and I since we have replaced all the carpeting in our home with tile. Luckily, our climate is conducive to living with tile floors...

BTW: I now put an "Entry" caption on my arrival images ever since some well meaning person placed an arrival image (which is just to establish an entry baseline) as the adoption image. That would not be terriblly bad in the case of Sally Ann but, some of our dogs are horrific looking when we receive them...

[IzzieK]

She is a very pretty little girl...Richard...I hope she is fully trained now...