Image quality

Chris Wilson

Chris Wilson

Suspended / Banned
Messages
661
Edit My Images
No
Hi all, I'm new here so please be gentle!
I've posted a couple of shots in the "Birds" forum which have looked really soft compared to the originals.
In fact I deleted one shot of a water rail as it was simply not good enough.
However the same shot posted on Flickr looked pretty good for the conditions.
It's a low light grab-shot but the eyes are in focus and it was worth posting as it's of a fairly rarely seen bird (I got three shots off before it skulked back off into the reeds).

To cut to the chase I would very much like to continue posting here but I'm concerned that this don't show my shots in their best light (pun intended).

All help appreciated.

cheers, cw
 
Are you uploading to the gallery here or just linking to Flickr?

If the former what size are you uploading them at? I accidentally uploaded a shot to the gallery here at full res yesterday, and the software here appeared to resize down to around 1000px longest. The conversion was a little soft but that's to be expected.

I re-exported and uploaded at 800px and it was better.

If the latter, what size image are you linking to on Flickr?
 
Hi David

I haven't started a gallery yet - but having had a nosey around I certainly will. I'll make sure that I resize accordingly!
I upload to Flickr at full res - might as well use the 1TB storage.

Thanks for the help.(y)

cheers, cw
 
One way to test this.... hang on.. I'll pull a random shot from Flickr, then post the same thing via the gallery in here.

Back in a min.


[edit]

Ok....

Flickr
8106896650_c793a86e89_c.jpg


TP Gallery
2279-1390130605-da9bbb72d925f471cd41c876def97f52.jpg



Looks the same to me.
 
Last edited:
Flickr (and other hosts) don't do images many favours. In fact, no screen viewing can really do a great shot the justice it deserves. The only thing that can really be judged from a monitor is the composition of a shot. Exposure, colour rendition and sharpness are all thrown to the winds. IMO, it's usually unfair to make any major crit of those three aspects of a shot unless you can see the shot as the creator intends it to be seen. It may look great on their screen but yours is unlikely (even if both are calibrated) to show the shot exactly the same.

Having seen some of Mr W's work as intended, I know that his shots are needle sharp, especially the ones he's willing to show the general public!
 
Indeed Nod is correct... but my post above demonstrates that there is no difference between image hosted on Flickr and here on TP.

At these tiny screen resolutions.. images will never show the fine detail that the full resolution RAW file or finished full res edit will.

If all you do with your images is post them online or view on a screen... then don#'t panic about how sharp it is, because the fine detail will always be lost when it's shown at such low resolutions. So long as you know it's sharp... then that's all that matters. I often have a good laugh at people who comment on image sharpness with a 800 pixel image. It's impossible to say with any certainty how sharp the original image is when it's represented at such low resolution.

If you want to show off your images. Print them.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nod
HUGE :plusone: for prints. Pretty much all my keepers get printed and a large number get taken up to A4. Rather fewer then get the full A3+ treatment. I have been tempted to get a wide format printer so I can go even bigger but GAS needs controlling so an upgrade to my current A3+ will (probably!) be as far as I'll go. I'm happy with what it can deliver in colour but would like better B&W prints.
 
Pookeyhead said:
Indeed Nod is correct... but my post above demonstrates that there is no difference between image hosted on Flickr and here on TP.

At these tiny screen resolutions.. images will never show the fine detail that the full resolution RAW file or finished full res edit will.
Click to expand...

I agree you never get the full appreciation however...

If I upload a clean sharp shot to Flickr then post on TP it looks clean and sharp on here.

If I host a soft or slightly out of focus shot to Flickr then post on TP it looks soft or slightly out of focus on here.

I appreciate there may be the odd funny, but generally speaking you can differentiate between good and bad.
 
It would have to be very soft to be noticeable on a 800 pixel wide forum image. You;'d have probably noticed yourself and wouldn't need people to point it out to you.
 
Shame you left school close to 32 years ago!!! ;)

I upload to Flickr (and my gallery here) at 800px longest side in the hope that WISIWIG when shown here. Reduces the chances of an image being ripped off too, although the chances of that are small anyway (and all pix are set as Private.)
 
Oi!!!!

Of course I do agree that printing is the best course of action. Once I've finished my weight training I'll be moving the new A3 printer into position and firin' 'er up!

Oh and Nod, why aren't you out taking photos in the sunshine??? Eh?

cheers, cw
 
No transport. :(

Soon... Can't come soon enough tough!
 
Nod said:
no screen viewing can really do a great shot the justice it deserves. The only thing that can really be judged from a monitor is the composition of a shot. Exposure, colour rendition and sharpness are all thrown to the winds. IMO, it's usually unfair to make any major crit of those three aspects of a shot unless you can see the shot as the creator intends it to be seen.
Click to expand...

Hmmm.... What if the creator intends it to be seen, and created it specifically to be seen, on screen, and has for example prepared it for viewing in subdued light at a particular size on a calibrated monitor using the sRGB colour space?

What if a viewer were to look at such an image on the same screen and under the same lighting conditions as the originator? Would it then be fair to assess anything beyond composition?

A screen and a print have different characteristics as output media. It sounds as though your contention is that the characteristics of a screen as an output medium are always and inevitably inferior to those of a print. Have I understood you correctly? If so, is it that the screen characteristcs are inferior on balance, perhaps some better and some not so good, but overall not so good, or in your view are all the characteristics of a print as an output medium superior to those of a screen, for example in terms of the dynamic range it can portray, the colour space it can portray or its ability to portray a perceptibly finer degree of micro-detail than a screen image of the same physical dimensions even if the screen is using a dot pitch finer than the human eye can resolve?

Nod said:
It may look great on their screen but yours is unlikely (even if both are calibrated) to show the shot exactly the same.
Click to expand...

Doesn't a print look different depending on the light it is viewed in? So for a print to look exactly the same to a viewer as the originator, the viewer would have to exactly replicate the lighting conditions in which the originator decided that the print was as he or she wanted it to be seen. Isn't there just as much of a problem with this sort of ambient light calibration as with screen calibration? (And as a corollary, presumably in your view you shouldn't look at prints in available light as that can vary so much and is unlikely to be the same as the ambient light in which the image creator assessed the image. And following this line of thought, presumably it would be unreasonable to offer any major crit of exposure or colour rendition of a print if the image creator created the image under available light, as you have no way of knowing, and therefore no way of reliably replicating, the lighting conditions under which the image was created.)
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top