Uploaded Images seem unsharpened and compressed when viewed on Photo.net

[Mark Keefer]

I just noticed this. I uploaded a tack sharp jpeg image to No Words forum and when viewed at full resolution it looks unsharpened. One of the things Photo.net never did before was screw with images like would happen on Facebook. That was a distinct advantage Photo.net had, it preserved the work of the photographer. But what I just saw looked bad. Was this because I uploaded a 3000-pixel wide image?

I snipped the screen of PN at 100% and layered it over the original JPG 3000 pixel wide I uploaded. This is a small screen snip. Not sure how well this will work posting here. I will try with different browsers, but this is edge, never noticed this before.

So, what is the scoop? 

[Mark Keefer]

Nope, just as bad in Chrome. This is not the same sharp image I uploaded.

LINK

 

[Sandy Vongries]

No idea why, and the color is bad as well.  Been busy with a variety of other things, so have only uploaded a few images.  I will have to fool around with it a bit.

[Mark Keefer]

OK, Sandy. Others can test this themselves. Something is very wrong. A dedicated photography site should not alter photographer's photos that were carefully edited in post processing. It makes my images look like they were shot by a newbie with no skills using a cheap $5 camera with plastic lens. I am shooting with a Canon 5D MK IV a good lens. 

[Sandy Vongries]

I posted three images under test postings just now, they look good.  I think all were with D810 and Micro Nikkor 105 2.8D.  Off to whip up some dinner, I try again later.

[Mark Keefer]

Hmm, the image I uploaded was a lightroom panorama that was reduced to 3000 when saved as jpeg, opening the saved exported from LR 3000 pixel wide jpeg, best quality eetting, it is super sharp viewed in browser and photo viewer from computer, but after uploading here it is not sharp. 

Original files were Canon 5D Mk IV large RAW. In lightroom classic I created a panorama. Exported as Jpeg high quality. The files are very sharp. Try doing the same, save/export 3000 pixel wide and post in No Words. 

Edited November 12, 2022 by Mark Keefer

[Dustin McAmera]

I have noticed that the pictures I put here (as links from Flickr) don't look quite as sharp as they do there. It's not a huge difference, and I assumed it's about changes in size. If I remember right, we were (whenever) supposed to use 1000-pixels wide: Flickr offers you 1024 wide (or 800 or 1600 are the next steps up and down). I don't know what Photo.net does about that, but I can imagine scaling-down by a tiny bit would affect how the image looks.

Then of course, my browser is scaling it up, because the screen is 3840 pixels wide, and the images always fill the width of the box.

I can't say I've noticed any change in colour. On colour, I read somewhere here that images in sRGB are recommended. Is that relevant?

 

[Mark Keefer]

I will try and rework the image and try again.

[Mark Keefer]

I have tested three browsers, Microsoft Edge, Chrome, Opera. I have uploaded 3 files 2000 pixels up to 6000 Pixels wide, the image resolution displayed off Photo.net is not the resolution of the actual file. If I download the image from Photo.net the resolution of the downloaded file is 1200x681 regardless of original file. I loaded the downloaded file from PNs HTML displayed image file into Photoshop. All Palm Tree detail is gone regardless of detail that was crystal clear in the uploaded file. The resolution has been dropped to 1200 pixels wide and it did a poor job at that. This never happened in the previous version of Photo.net.

I hope this gets fixed.  This is a big flaw for a site for photography and photographers to display their work. Please fix or respond if this is planned to be addressed or not. 

Thanks, Mark

Link to PN Test Files

[Mark Keefer]

I just tested this photo at 2400 pixels wide on Facebook and it looks sharper than Photo.net. Facebook is better resolution, less compression.

 

LINK TO IMAGE ON FACEBOOK at 2400 pixels wide

Edited November 12, 2022 by Mark Keefer

[Timo Hartikainen]

I uploaded a photo yesterday and it's only 800 pixels wide, but I noticed it has more jpeg compression than my original "ready to be uploaded"-file on my hard disk. I think there should be no modification for the uploaded files.

[rws]

Yes, I've noticed myself.  I normally upload my pictures with jpeg quality between 93 and 95 (depending on the size of the photo -- I try to keep size under 1mb).  Universally my uploaded pics are recompressed to jpeg quality of 85, with 2x2 chroma subsampling, reducing the final size of the image from 800 or 900 kb to 200-400 kb.  I agree with Timo - this kind of modification should not happen on a serious photo site.

[Mark Keefer]

I am hoping this will be fixed, looks pretty bad on a 17-inch laptop screen or 32-inch monitor.  This really kills my photos, especially landscape photos. Everything looks out of focus soft with artifacts. Not optimal for a photography site in the year 2022.  I don't want to be a PIA but this is pretty important for a photography site, it would be like Spotify or iTunes dropping the audio quality of music to 16kbps instead of 160kbps.

[Mark Keefer]

I confirmed the compression using an online XIF Viewer, this image I uploaded is 2.37 MB file size, this image displayed on PN has been reduced to 84.4 kb

There is where the image quality went. Wow. I wonder if the original quality is even being saved on the site and if not, does that mean all the images in my portfolio here are now essentially degraded here. PN used to allow you to sell images, but who is going to pay for a 84.4 kb print. I really hope this can be fixed.

Edited November 29, 2022 by Mark Keefer

[samstevens]

On 11/13/2022 at 8:54 PM, rws1664886018 said:

serious photo site

🤣

[mikemorrellNL]

@Mark Keefer I know nothing about the Invision algorithm for resizing images. But I repeated your test and I came up with similar results. I uploaded a photo (3000 x 2000 px) with a file size of 3.837 KB. My uploaded photo was 1600 x 1066px with a file size of 275 KB.

As far as I know, it's not uncommon for 'photo sites' to limit the file size of uploaded photos. And also to reduce the size for different 'digital displays'. Again, without knowing the Invision algorithm for uploading and displaying photos, it seems to me that Invision is more than limiting the resolution and size of uploaded photos to that which can be displayed.

IHMO, its unacceptable that Invision limits the size of uploaded photos to the resolution that they can (at the moment) can digitally display.

At the moment 'full HD' monitors and Tv's have a resolution of 1920px. (more than the current Invision upload limit). But this resolution is rapidly increasing.. So-called 4K monitors and screens have a resolution of 3840 x 2160px. Invision's photo upload limits and display options seem woefully behind the times.

 

 

[Mark Keefer]

I have started saving images at 1200 pixel wide for posting in the forums. Even so the system still compresses softens and blurs the image. I even save as B&W thinking that will reduce the file size, but the system still blurs the image. I really hope this gets fixed soon. With all the newly unemployed Twitter and Facebook programmers, there has to be some talent that can turn off this compression. The images are not this soft. It's like we stepped back to 1995 and hard drives were small and fast dial up was 9600 baud. I have thumb drives bigger than the hard drives is 1995 and I have 100 megabytes per second downloads. Please fix, give us an update. Sorry if I am a squeaky wheel. But I hope this gets greased soon.

Edited December 5, 2022 by Mark Keefer

[mikemorrellNL]

I've been browsing some Invision community Admin boards (mainly at https://invisioncommunity.com/).

As far as I can tell, the maximum resolution and file size for uploaded - or as attachment posted - photos in pixels is configurable (by Admins) on the Invision platform. There's even an option to set the upload resolution to 'unlimited'. These options obviously need to be in line with the amount of storage available (paid for) and with the community's purpose. As on all websites, a balance needs to struck between the 'image size' and the page load times.

The Invision platform was IHMO never intended to provide a 'digital file archiving service'. Rather it supports photo sharing between members. So photo upload resolutions, file sizes - and yes even compression are normally tailored towards (digital) photo sharing between forum members.

On any forum/website, photos are (responsively) resized to fit a display area on any device. I saw a comment on a forum that indicates that all photos go through  'resizing/compression' before being displayed. The level of compression is - again - configurable but is typically 25%-30%. But 0% )or 5% or 10%) is also possible although even with this setting, it seems that photos still go through the 'resizing/compression' process. 

It's possible that the 'compression process/algorithm' on the (standard) Invision platform causes problems. It's also IMHO probable that the current photo size upload limit (1600px long side, max. file size unknown) is not compatible with a further 'decompression ratio' of 25% - 30%. 

IMHO, the main problem for us members is not the Invision platform itself (which is highly configurable in terms of image size and quality) but the lack of Admin attention to these - and many more - platform configuration details.

Basically, the PN migration to Invision, as @Sandy Vongries mentions, is still incomplete. I would personally add 'stalled'. I was enthusiastic about the initial communication - both on the 'old' and 'new' PN sites - about the frequency, honesty and responsiveness of communications by @mjensen.  It's very disappointing that these have dried up during the past 6-8 weeks or so.

I and other PN members have tried to PM Matt via PN to offer support for the migration. So far without response.

FWIW, I don't blame Matt (Fiverr Team Lead - Digital Community Engagement Programs) personally. In all organizations, people get reassigned to other things as priorities change and new opportunities arise. But some kind of 'status update' by Matt or one of his Fiverr colleagues would be very welcome. Even if it's just 'don't count on any updates for the next x months'.

So we're left with the situation that Matt and/or his team are the only 'Admins' for PN but have no time to act as Admins to complete the migration.

Mike

 

[samstevens]

2 hours ago, mikemorrellNL said:

But some kind of 'status update' by Matt or one of his Fiverr colleagues would be very welcome. Even if it's just 'don't count on any updates for the next x months'.

In many cases, actions speak louder than words. This seems like one of those cases. “Don’t count on any updates” is, by now, obvious. An explicit statement to that effect seems unnecessary. 😢

Edited December 5, 2022 by samstevens

[Mark Keefer]

On 12/5/2022 at 9:41 AM, samstevens said:

In many cases, actions speak louder than words. This seems like one of those cases. “Don’t count on any updates” is, by now, obvious. An explicit statement to that effect seems unnecessary. 😢

Honestly, the last update I felt bad for the admins as the users were pretty nasty and vocal. I really don't want to be a troll here. Remain calm, it's just a photography website, it's not like these guys trashed the National Art Gallery or the Louvre Museum. My photos are spread across 15 hard drives going back two decades. I could probably go through a life time of shots to cherry pick good ones again.

I have been a paying member here for the better part of two decades. One of the things I liked was I could directly link to a 3000 pixel wide image I had here in my gallery and use it to share to friends on other social media or reference it on a lens review on my blog.

I just looked at my camera blog and the linked photos are gone. Some nice work lost but possibly can be repaired. I realize I should not have counted on PN even though I was a paying member. It's a Bulleting Board of sorts on the web. I used to run one in the 1980's and 1990's. Hard drives crash, things go wrong.

PN as a commercial site let me down years ago, when it offered a Photo webpage, think it was yourname.photography.com. I actually had business cards printed with that link, and about a month later they sold the URL.  Photography.com is now a photo printing site.

I still have and use those 2000 business cards with correct phone number but with that URL and email crossed out with Sharpie. Oh how professional. lol.

I learned my lesson, use a real website URL you own and use a hosting service that you can switch from.

Back in the 2000's  the internet was younger a new. Guess I learned a few things along the way. Still I made use of PN. I suppose I got some good years out of it.

I am traveling a lot in the last few years, my hard drives are across the continent from me at the moment. PN was very handy as I could find many pieces of my work at a reasonable resolution without to much hassle. I was trying to access a photo I did of a snowman for some holiday work I was working on in California. After about a half hour of searching the PN this past weekend I gave up. It would be easier for me to drive to the mountains and make a snowman to photograph that to find the photo I have some place here. Man, how I wish they fix this. 😁 Just venting, but keeping a smiling face guys. Don't give up working on fixing this. You can do it.

So really the only thing keeping me here now is the community. I frequent the Canon EOS forum, No Words, Landscapes, Nature, B&W, Casual Photo Conversations...

It is frustrating, almost 2 decades of work seems to be snafued. But the world is always changing.

It would be nice if there was a way to link the old cloudfront.net servers could not be linked to. Just posting this link to see what happens.  LINK

I pay for an Amazon Prime membership, that gives you Amazon Photos. I tried that, what an awful interface. I probably should just stick to my personal website and blog and just do some casual low res photo stuff here for fun in the forums. 

Things could be worse. And maybe they will get better. Keep your chin up folks. The Holidays approach and Spring is only 4 months off.

 

 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Mark Keefer
Fix typo