To those of you who comment and those of you who post (presumably one and the same), keep in mind that the image you created, either through the use of a camera or computer, that looks so great on your screen when you've finished it and are ready to submit it, may not appear the same way when it reaches it's destination. I have noticed that some of the photos I've submitted to Caedes over the past year can appear darker, have less contrast value, or even appear over-sharpened. And it's not just the Caedes site, it's the internet itself. I recently emailed an image to a Caedes friend in Louisiana and the internet added CA and over-sharpening, making it look quite different from my original. So if you get questionable comments or suggestions that don't make sense ("What are they talking about? It looked fine to me!"), consider that your image might have altered a little without your knowledge, or you see something in an image you're commenting on that obviously needs fixing, it's okay to bring it to the artist's attention, just keep in mind that the problem may not be of the originator's doing. I am not saying that anyone at Caedes is messing with the images -- I think it's something that the technology itself occasionally does... that and the fact that everyone's monitors are adjusted and calibrated differently. Or am I the only one who's noticed this phenomenon?

No, it's a known issue. Try posting images in .PNG format. It's a slightly denser file, but it does a better job of maintaining image quality. JPEG's on the other hand, tend to get degraded, not just when posting, but also when transferring an image from one editing program to another.

I always use PNGs for posting. Have for about a year and a half. But it still happens.

Happens to me, as well. Mine get lighter, less vivid, and the reds/yellows/oranges especially become less saturated. I've thought about using PNG, but Lightroom won't export in that format (aarrggghhh!), so I've upped JPEG quality (with no luck).

One thing that is especially noticeable is an image that has been edited where the person has used black "paint" in PS or similar to remove undesired elements from a night sky (or similar black background). Obviously on their screen they have the contrast set so that the areas they have "painted" are not visible, but are very noticeable when I view them on my computer... I always suggest they use the clone tool instead, or at least turn the contrast up before they finish their edit so they can see how it might appear to others.

Personally I can't recall that I have ever noticed a great difference after I have uploaded an image (though it's possible I may just have forgotten). For the record I always upload in PNG nowadays.

I have two computers - different monitors, LCD & CRT.
I have noticed that my images appear very different on each one - despite my efforts to calibrate them equally.
The CRT hides a lot of 'noise' and makes most images appear darker.
The LCD is less forgiving, and I think there are cases when some members who use CRT are told there is a bit of noise visible they can not see it on their own screen.
As Sam said above - often pp work can be seen, and I notice this on the LCD but not near as much on the CRT.
I almost always upload in JPEG and do not notice much variation from the original in most cases.

Adding a grayscale band under images on the individual pages might help members to adjust their monitors more easly.

Like here:

http://www.fotokritik.com/2482328

A lot like in the old days of film cameras that allowed the white balance to be set for the roll by shooting the first photo of a neutral gray field. Some lens cleaning cloths were that color. In fact, some still are today.

I have noticed various versions of this and I suspect that when I eventually get a properly good high contrast monitor I'm going to notice some things on my post work that will make me blush. :) I have also seen posterizing on images on my screen that other's don't see in the same images and other kinds of artefacts as well. Just another factor of life outside our control.

I just noticed the difference between this preview and this.
(It's not the same file because I needed different proportions, but all the editing is the same except for the cropping.)

This looked good on my computer, but here it looks like an over-compressed JPG. Even the full-size version looks worse. And it was a PNG that I uploaded ...

Insofar as your first post, two back is concerned?

The differences that I note, are that of 'sharpness'. Which, could be attributable to having resampled/resizing the image.


Can't recall at the moment which image editing software you have at your disposal, forging ahead and for your creative reading pleasure:

"Resampling"

/\ To give you a general idea of the differences between that of "Nearest Neighbor", "Bilinear", "Bicubic", "Bicubic Smoother", and "Bicubic Sharper".

Sharpness is the main issue on the first image, but the differences are online, not on my computer. I've noticed several times that my images don't look as sharp here. Even the one I just posted, Joanie mentioned sharpening it, but the image I uploaded does look sharper on my computer.
(BTW, I have Paint Shop Pro 8. I've found the "Smart Size" option works the best, but I don't know what it does.)

This is one reason why I post so infrequently now. I am continually disappointed with the loss in quality of an image uploaded to Caedes. I have deleted an image tonight which I uploaded which had so much detail when viewed on my pc and also viewed on the internet, but when uploaded to Caedes (and in the recommended .pgn format) it lost so much quality it looked flat, drab and boring. Maybe I am doing something wrong - I used to post a lot and did not have this problem. ...any suggestions from regular posters for a foolproof method for retaining quality of an image when uploading to the site?

ps I use Photoshop to edit my photos and also view the finished image in Photofiltre, Windows and the Internet before uploading to check the quality.

Though I use Photoshop a good bit most of my files are exported from Lightroom. I export JPG at 100% quality down sized to 2000 or 3000 pixels to fit Caedes limits. Lightroom does not do PNG. Mine look identical on the desktop and in the browser side by side. I wish I could offer more Patti but, try uploading high quality JPG of the same and see if it makes a difference. It would be nice to know if it does.

Perhaps relevent or atleast worth repeating...

Caedes 1-28-09 or 28/1/09
"When you send a non-JPEG file, the system will convert it to JPEG and then save it at 95% quality (this is normal). If you send a JPEG file, the system will only recompress your file if the file size is larger than 1 byte per pixel (most JPEGs should be well under this).

The idea is that we can make sure that we keep as much image quality while not wasting disk space. We will not recompress your uploaded image as long as it is sent at a reasonable compression. You still have the option of using a lossless format such as PNG."

I'm confused. Is that saying it's better to upload PNG because it's lossless, or JPG because your PNG file will be converted and compressed?

Niether.
If you upload PNG the system theoretically creates an excellent compressed version.
If you upload JPG It will be stored on the server as is.

The original post was just a clarification of how our uploads were handled at that time.
Link to original post-
http://www.caedes.net/Zephir.cgi?lib=Board::Topic&id=2499216

thanks David for taking the time to give me some tips. I will try uploading an image as suggested in jpg format at 100% compressed to 2000 or 3000. I'll let you know if this makes a difference.

I've been uploading at jpg. & like LynEve, I too "do not notice much variation from the original in most cases." Since I render in jpg anyway.

I don't know if it's still relevant at this point, but the color profile was also important once upon a time. If you use the sRGB profile as your final edit prior to upload profile, it should produce a "web-safe" image.

The first image I uploaded here - I was not using that profile, and the colors flattened out like a cheap air mattress. Which sounds like the result you got. 8•)

Hmmmmmmm... definitely something to check. Salamat po.

-Nik

I know that Photoshop has a "save for web" function. I used to use it to create buttons etc that had the smallest possible file size but I think you can adjust the options to save it in a higher quality format... I guess at the very least that way you can see if there is any loss of quality before you upload it.

Moar.. stuff:


"Web Browser Color Management Tutorial"

"Firefox 3: Color profile support (oh the pretty, pretty colors)"

I haven't noticed differences in color, just less sharpness and more noise.

I don't think this would be why uploads would look different but it is some good education about image quality when resizing. Just posting it here because it is related to image quality loss.

Upscaling/Resampling Badness and Why DPI Doesn't Matter.

Hey Hannah.
I had a look at "Silk and Purple" you linked to above. Looking at it full size and even zoomed in closer I don't see any noise at all. Everything looks silky smooth. I see a little banding in the purple but it looks natural, possibly intentional rather than any kind of defect. I see the same on the Red Buble version. The banding is there but slightly less noticeable and the color is slightly different but nothing significant.

Does it still look noisy on your end? Have you downloaded the largest size and looked at it in Paintshop Pro and compared the original with the Caedes modified in the same program?

I am just wondering if there could be any chance of the website its self or the web browser being the problem. The more we test, the more the problem gets narrowed down.

P.S.
Paint Shop Pro resize options-
quote from a tutorial...
"The Resize type option you choose can affect the quality of the reduction. You will have four selections—Bilinear, Bicubic, Pixel, and Smart size. You can use the Bilinear option when reducing photo realistic images. You can use the Bicubic option when increasing an image's size. The Pixel option is optimized for line drawings that do not have a great deal of color depth. I recommend using the Smart size option, which tells Paint Shop Pro to use the best algorithm based on the image characteristics."

So that's what it does :0)

I don't notice it as much in the full size version, but in the preview and smaller versions.
It's more noticeable (to me) in this one. The smaller versions show some compression noise especially around the tree, in the full size the background just looks rough somehow.
I tried opening the original in Firefox and it looked fine. Maybe I'll try uploading a JPG.

The full size ones do look better - if only every viewer and voter saw it!

I see what you are seeing Hannah. The background and the area around the tree are clearly showing compression artifacts even in the largest size. I had not noticed when I saw it before, but they are clearly there. I'm sure if I had created it I would have noticed right away and been disappointed just as you. I do hope you try one in JPG and let us know how it does. It would be nice to know if it makes a difference.

Here's my experiment:

Seafoam I

Seafoam II

I was really hoping it made a difference. Guess it's just the nature of the beast.