Uploading JPG to Web Changes Features...

[KicknGuitar]

I've noticed this a few times but finally decided to compare my uploads with multiple sites to the original JPG file.

What happens is The colors have been adjusted in the uploaded JPGs and noise or something like it appears around my "watermark," as well as other areas.

Any idea why this happens?

Here's an example,
http://fc28.deviantart.com/fs41/i/20...tovescence.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6636/img69171kg4.jpg

[Colin Southern]

My guess is that the websites are re-rendering the image, probably as a space/bandwidth saving strategy.

Having just said that - on my home screen at least - the two are looking pretty identical.

[Davey]

Look identical to me too. Just a thought but what browser are you viewing them on and what type of connection. My thinking behind asking is I notice when I connect at home on my network (standard asdl broadband) images display fine but when I connect to net via my hsdpa modem (huawei e220 on tmobile contract) it will compress images on some sites (but not all) or if certain requirements are met to save bandwidth.

[Dave Humphries]

I too see similar, but slightly different blotches around the characters when zoomed in over 100% and would confirm this to be what I understand as jpg coding artefacts. I am no expert, but believe this happens when the pattern jpg calculates for the 8 x 8 pixel block is disrupted, and this gets worse for lower qualities.

I would ask what jpg quality setting youare saving these at, and the file size that results, for a given picture that you upload.

In the examples given, it is interesting to note that 'fc28' is now 36208 bytes at Deviantart, where as 'img120' at imageshack is 60,097 bytes, both say they are 400px × 600px. So it looks highly likely one or more of the hosting sites have re-rendered as Colin suggests.


If you have the patience, you could always try some comparative tests yourself; open your master copy of this file, re-size to 400 x 600 if necessary, then repeatedly Save As (under different suffix filenames) at the all the different jpg qualities from 1 to 10. Then open them all, zoom in to 100-200%, and cut between them to see what happens.

EDIT: Another thought; I was assuming you are putting the branding on before upload and not them as it is served. Although it's still the same effect.

Hope that helps,

[KicknGuitar]

I appreciate the explanations, I'm assuming there's nothing I can do about them.
Oh and both are identical or close to it, which is why I assumed it was the sites or even my browser and not my original file (since these changes don't appear).

Both uploads were kept at the original size of some-thousand-plus px by some-thousand-plus px... but the conversion of the RAW to JPG was at the 9 or 10 quality setting and baseline optimized in Ps. I guess the watermark was flattened during the save.

I was just wondering why and if I could correct these "artifacts." Thanks guys.

[crisscross]

I've noticed this a few times but finally decided to compare my uploads with multiple sites to the original JPG file.

What happens is The colors have been adjusted in the uploaded JPGs and noise or something like it appears around my "watermark," as well as other areas.

Any idea why this happens?

Here's an example,
http://fc28.deviantart.com/fs41/i/20...tovescence.jpg
http://img120.imageshack.us/img120/6636/img69171kg4.jpg

The imageshack one is far more saturated in red on my kit (Firefox 3 + colour management on MacBook pro 1640x900 calibrated). The watermarks look clear. I suspect the imposition of the dreaded sRGB on the 1st. But I am afraid I am not going to be looking at your pics that much with a watermark smack across the middle; I think you have to decide to share fully or not bother Evan.

[Dave Humphries]

You are correct in all your suppositions and therefore, no there's nothing you can really do about it.

However, now Chris has mentioned it, I think I was too close to the trees to see the forest.

Chris has a valid point; the watermark itself is a huge spoiler for the tens or hundreds of people that might view your pictures and will put some people off view anymore of your work immediately. So agonising over a bit of fuzz on the letters at 200% is rather academic.

The way I look at is this; 99.9% of people looking at the pictures are not going to rip them off and make money from them, so you've lost nothing, except the goodwill of 99% of viewers. OK, some may like one or two enough to download and say use as their desktop wallpaper or similar, does that really matter?

Personnally, any photos I take that might get ripped off have a discreet watermark that is placed at the edge of frame and contains the usual copyright + date, my name and e-mail address, you never know when that might be handy. It is toned and positioned so as not to spoil the composition, yes, it can be smudged out or cropped off, but as only 0.1% might do that, it becomes effective for the vast majority, they know who I am and where to find me.

So perhaps the way to do something about it is not to put the watermark there in the first place.

Just my opinion, which I accept might be different if I were a pro trying to feed the kids with my photography earnings, (dunno if that applies here anyway)

Regards,

[KicknGuitar]

Well, without getting into the philosophy of artistic creation and distribution, I just thought it would be a good idea to put my name down to protect it and not just throw around anonymous work (get some recognition). I guess I was jumping too much by putting it over the middle, I personally hate that myself, but thought it was best. My shots aren't eye popping but I'd like the recognition if someone enjoys it.

My edit actually was more saturated then Firefox seems to show the images. but it clearly shows these artifacts. My guess it's a combination of what you've pointed out with economic website hosting and computer/browser settings (since Br and Ps have no problem showing me the better of the bunch).

Thanks again guys. I think I'll be keeping the watermark to the side.

[Colin Southern]

Well, without getting into the philosophy of artistic creation and distribution, I just thought it would be a good idea to put my name down to protect it and not just throw around anonymous work (get some recognition). I guess I was jumping too much by putting it over the middle, I personally hate that myself, but thought it was best. My shots aren't eye popping but I'd like the recognition if someone enjoys it.

Not too long ago we beat the living daylights out of our good friend Chuck for his watermarks - you might like to have a read through that thread: Bluejay Where Hobbits Dwell and have a chat to Chuck about "life after life-sized watermarks"!

[KicknGuitar]

I wish I could have seen these "life sized" ones! DeviantArt Does a huge watermark as part of the upload option (way too disgusting).

I began to mess with the watermark idea over the image after seeing this one photographer do it on DeviantArt,
http://fc53.deviantart.com/fs41/f/20...unkromance.jpg

However, I do see the major difference between his and mine. He's got it tiny as heck and the font is so thin it practically blends in. Although I think I'll be going with just a "signature" at the edges of my photos from now on.

Could the "artifacts" be from a scaled down image? I don't rescale my images when I take them off my camera, and I can see them in "thumb nail" links.

[Colin Southern]

Could the "artifacts" be from a scaled down image? I don't rescale my images when I take them off my camera, and I can see them in "thumb nail" links.

Not sure. Try a little test - download the image from your site then compare the pixel dimensions & size to the original perhaps?

[dendrophile]

What I do for the photos I put up on the web is add a copyright message using photoshop. That way people can tell I don't want them "stealing" my work. Clearly it does not stop them if they want to, but I'd prefer to let people enjoy my efforts, and most people are "good".

If someone wants a low-resolution version of one of my attempts, good luck to them. :-)

Graham

[Daniel Salazar]

Hi KicknGuitar, what you're doing is understandable, however when showing our pictures here, the quality is low and if in the top of that we all add a wattermark, then we can't really appreciate the pictures.

Also, when showing your pictures is beeter if you do it the way is mentioned in the following thread. It'll let us see a bigger picture.

HELP THREAD: How can I post images here?

[KicknGuitar]

So silly me, I figured it out. It's been downgraded. . . a lot.
This is what I did (Stole the concept from Colin) I remembered DeviantArt allows you to "resize" your image and also "allow" other to download the image. In other words, they've downgraded the image to save space, while the original uploaded file can be allowed (by the owner) to be shared.
I saved the resized image and then clicked on the "monitor" link to the left, which says "Download."
Lo and behold the downloaded image was the original export size of 1.3mb, while the resized image was a mere 120kb!! Here's the page, http://phosphotovescence.deviantart....7192-111967969
If you open the two up and zoom in just a little, you can see the artifacts as clear as day, as well as a whiter tone in the resized image.

I appreciate it all. Now I just need to make up my mind on the font for my tiny "signatures"