Soft images ... when uploaded ... !!!

[MagpieMick]

Hello all,

When my images are upload to WAB they appear soft, some are i know its the best you can get on the day and all that ( bla bla bla )....

But even the sharp ones when loaded appear soft yet are not so on other sites...

I resize and save for the web in Elements 5 and don't seem to have any problems elsewhere is there a different method that works better for the WAB.. ???

Mick..

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

it might sound a daft question but do you sharpen the images after you re-size them?

neil

[mh68]

Originally Posted by MagpieMick

Hello all,

When my images are upload to WAB they appear soft, some are i know its the best you can get on the day and all that ( bla bla bla )....

But even the sharp ones when loaded appear soft yet are not so on other sites...

I resize and save for the web in Elements 5 and don't seem to have any problems elsewhere is there a different method that works better for the WAB.. ???

Mick..

If the image is larger than the default viewing size its automatically downsized to fit, which softens it. You need to click on the image again to view it at its original size and sharpness.

Mark H

[MagpieMick]

Hello Neil,

No i don't sharpen after re-sizing, does this help........

[DavyG]

I find it best to resize the image, then sharpen as necessary.

Dave

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by mh68

If the image is larger than the default viewing size its automatically downsized to fit, which softens it. You need to click on the image again to view it at its original size and sharpness.

Mark H

Mark is right, it's basically the WAB gallery software that softens the image when it resizes them. Can't remember what the default size is off hand but if you look at a few thumbnails in the gallery you will notice that the ones that the gallery software has downsized have two separate sizes in kilobytes under them.

One is the original kilobyte size when uploaded and the smaller kilobyte figure is what the software has compressed the image down to and as a result it has lost some sharpness.
Roger

[MagpieMick]

Thanks all,

Will try resizing to default size and sharpening at that and see how they look ... !!!

Mick ...

[wildlifesnapper]

Hi

I resize them to 72dpi , 1000 pixels wide for landscape format and 800 pixels wide for portrait format and then sharpen. Seems to work OK.

neil

[glsammy]

I used to upload small images, but I wasn't happy with the default displayed image. I now load a much larger image, and hope everyone clicks on the image to see it as it's supposed to look like!

[MagpieMick]

Yes that would be nice, Graham, but most if not nearly all people click on the thumbnail image and that brings up the default one....

So then why the need for two separate images why not just one ?

And i know the answer its the software !!!

But you know what i mean.....

Thanks all

Mick..

[Geoff F]

There are a number of potential problems here. Resizing downwards can produce a softer image and sending by e mail also has an effect. I agree that some sites do appear to produce a slightly softer image.

There are a number of alternative settings and sizes to choose from and I'm not really sure which is really the best. However, this is what I do:

Start with a bright crisp original. Use some Unsharp Mask; the best sharpening method is open to debate, so I will pass on this for now. Resize the image. I use Bi Cubic Interpolation (at one time Bi Linear was recommended for decreasing, but now experts usually recommend Bi Cubic for substantial resizes). I may have lost a lot of people here; if your programme doesn't have these settings use Best Quality. Personally, I do not like any of the auto resize methods.

When doing a substantial downward resize I do it in 2 stages, but end up with something around 1200 pixels in width, or slightly bigger, at 96 pixels per inch. Some people suggest 72ppi which I believe is the norm in the USA.

After resizing I do another Unsharp Mask (usually 30% at 1 pixel radius). Then save as a 90% Jpeg (don't go lower than 80%). Sometimes, if I think that converting to Jpeg is losing sharpness I wait until after conversion, save then reopen the image, and do a final sharpen then.

I know that talk about ppi or dpi does confuse a lot of people, and cameras vary in their download ppi size. Personally speaking, I like to leave an image saved as a Tiff or Png at between 200 and 300 ppi for printing. Then resize downwards for internet use.

But if it is just being used for internet use a smaller ppi size is fine. But, very important, make sure that you do not downsize the original as this would cause a loss of quality if the photo was to be printed at some later time.

This probably sounds very complicated, but it isn't too bad once you manage to get your head around the idea of pixels per inch, and how this effects the size of your image.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by MagpieMick

Yes that would be nice, Graham, but most if not nearly all people click on the thumbnail image and that brings up the default one....

So then why the need for two separate images why not just one ?

And i know the answer its the software !!!

But you know what i mean.....

Thanks all

Mick..

Yep, your right it's the sites software! We have to remember not everyone is on a fast broadband connection, so I suspect the screen display size is set low so it's not too painful for those on slower connections. Us lucky ones can always click on the image to display the uncompressed image.

This is only my guess!

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by MagpieMick

Hello Neil,

No i don't sharpen after re-sizing, does this help........

Sharpening should really be done on the final image size, and I do mine as just about the last thing I do. This will not effect the softening effect your seeing though, it's the way the site software compresses the image to display it that causes the difference.

[matt_xyz]

images always need sharpening after resizing as that can make them very soft. As Graham says though, this problem is due to the WAB software. The way to avoid the software resizing your images is to make sure your images are less than 880 pixels tall and wide (although they have to be more than 800 wide and 600 tall). So, for example an image 880 wide and 800 tall will not be resized. I try to make all of my images fit within these constraints as I don't like the way the software softens them (and I assume many people don't bother to click on images). The downside is that it's very difficult to upload portrait format images that are 800 pixels wide yet do not exceed 880 pixels tall!

Matt

[PMG]

When starting out with a big image and I'm talking Mb's keep them at that to work on - unsharp mask should be the very last adjustment - then I save as is without compression, then save a second time with 50% compression, and a third time at 1280 x 800 and something-ish call it email - you will notice it has shrunk a great deal on screen and softened - scroll it back till you can see it and apply just sharpen and it will appear as the original and be a sharp thumbnail on the website.......... thats how I do it!

Pauline

[StuartDH]

The software is set to compress uploads to 80% in the gallery and 70% in the archive. You can upload up to 1600x1600 and in time, when more people adopt broadband, we'll probably raise the compression levels to make the original uploads sharper.

Stu

[Geoff F]

I'm not quite certain about this 80% automatic compression setting. Does this apply equally to all uploads or just those which have previously been saved at over 80%.

I can understand that a large uncompressed file would need to be decreased in size but does an image which has previously been compressed to 80% get compressed again? ie 80% of 80%. If so, would it be better to upload at 100% so the file only gets compressed once?

Additional to this, will an image uploaded at 1600 pixels wide appear sharper than one at 800? If so, there doesn't appear to be any point in reducing a large image beyond this point.

Hope this makes sense; I'm struggling to transfer thoughts into words here.

[crispy]

i would say that the overwhelming majority of people, if not all that
upload pictures here use braodband now, non broadband users are pretty rare these days.
its strange, i feel ive had this problem with all my images, even before
the time when wab used the old software and compared to some of the images
you see here which appear to have retained all their sharpness and qaulity it does make you think a little how do they do that?. all my photo's on this site do not look anything like the originals i have on my computer, its kinda disheartening.

[glsammy]

Originally Posted by Geoff F

I'm not quite certain about this 80% automatic compression setting. Does this apply equally to all uploads or just those which have previously been saved at over 80%.

I can understand that a large uncompressed file would need to be decreased in size but does an image which has previously been compressed to 80% get compressed again? ie 80% of 80%. If so, would it be better to upload at 100% so the file only gets compressed once?

Additional to this, will an image uploaded at 1600 pixels wide appear sharper than one at 800? If so, there doesn't appear to be any point in reducing a large image beyond this point.

Hope this makes sense; I'm struggling to transfer thoughts into words here.

I upload mine at 1600 pixels at the moment. The displayed image is no better than any other as it's compressed, but when you click on the image you see it as it's supposed to be. The other way to avoid the worst of the problem is to upload images no bigger than the display size. This isn't always possible, especially when doing portrait shots as you have to oversize the hight to get the minimum width. (800 pixels.) So for normal shots, try uploading at 800x600 pixels exactly and see how they look.