Photo assistance respectfully requested

strat1117 · Dec 14, 2009

I feel that I am losing resolution in my pictures when I upload them to the site. They look sharp and clear on my computer, but when I upload them to my albums, they seem to be much less so. I am not experienced enough to know whether or not there is more than one way to do this, so I am reaching out to you guys for help. I see the high quality of so many of your photographs, so I know it can be done.

I originally thought that upgrading from my old 5.0 mp Cannon PowerShot to a new Nikon 12.3 mp D5000 would take care of it, but it seems there its more to it than that. I am using the Nikon Software and/or the Microsoft software to download from my camera to the computer. Could that be where the problem lies?

I am attaching a few examples of pics that look good at home, but don't quite cut it here. Your assistance and advice is greatly appreciated.

Both of these really pop from the screen on my home computer, but on line, they look ordinary at best.

Thank you again for your indulgence.

chainfire · Dec 14, 2009

not an expert, but aren't the super high quality pics uploaded to something like postimage or google images & just pointed to?

strat1117 · Dec 14, 2009

chainfire said:
not an expert, but aren't the super high quality pics uploaded to something like postimage or google images & just pointed to?

I would very much like to know if that is what is going on -- it would make me feel much less ineffective. I don't have a subscription to a service like that, but perhaps it is the next step I need to take.

Thanks.

chainfire · Dec 14, 2009

strat1117 said:
I would very much like to know if that is what is going on -- it would make me feel much less ineffective. I don't have a subscription to a service like that, but perhaps it is the next step I need to take.

Thanks.

Easiest way to check would be to find a post that has a good hq photo and hit the 'post reply' if you see the [i m g] site [/ i m g] tag, at least you have an idea.

*King G* · Dec 14, 2009

If you took a photo and it looks good filling your screen but it lacks that 'pop' in a forum at a smaller size, I'd say it's a matter of the photo and not any software/resolution.

In both of the photos it looks as though there is a lot of direct flash lighting, and not any fill lighting behind/around your subject. Also, your camera's ISO setting can make a big difference in making things look 'better.' Try turning it as low as it can go- I think you will notice some difference.

mmack66 · Dec 14, 2009

I either pull my photos directly off of my memory card and save them to my computer and then upload, or upload directly from the card. It is possible that whatever program you are using is degrading the image somewhat.

Barber-Eile · Dec 14, 2009

Are you uploading the exact same photo? If you look at a Tiff image but then upload a Jpeg image they will look vastly different.
If you are uploading a large sized image some online uploader will compress the image to make it more web-friendly so they could also be the problem.
Are you viewing the images on the same PC the whole time yes? If not then monitor calibration could be an issue.
Are you viewing the images in any kind of software that might be doing something to them to make them look good? Often if you open a Jpeg in Photoshop it won't look the same as it does outside of Photoshop. Again this has to do with colour profiles and other boring stuff!

If you could give us a step by step of the process from camera to online then we might be able to pinpoint the part at which the change is happening

82R100 · Dec 14, 2009

I'd advise that you upload the picture to the Gallery as described in the sticky for this forum. It might compress/reduce the picture less than what's happening right now. Camera resolution's not going to have much effect, as what we're seeing as the end result is 600 X 399 pixels = 0.24 MPixels.

- Chris

TimMechEngr · Dec 14, 2009

If the picture from your camera was taken at a resolution of say, 3000 x 2000, and then uploaded here and compressed/reduced to say, 800 x 600, then there's your answer. Try setting your camera resolution to 800 x 600, take a picture and then upload it here. You might see a difference.

strat1117 · Dec 14, 2009

Thanks, guys. A lot of food for thought here.

HoustonianYankee · Dec 14, 2009

Neil,

I've looked at your posts here at my work PC, where the monitor is not calibrated. Nevertheless, I'd think that most people do not calibrate their monitors unless you're seriously into photography. That being daid, there are a few observations I can make:
1: The White balance appears to be off. It may need to have a slight adjustment.
2: The depth of field is severely constrained. The area of focus is very smal and I believe this results in a rather unnatural focus on your poor dog's snout. I can tell you that most folks would have a problem with that kind of attention being called to their nose!
3: Color appears fine aside from the WB issue I mentioned. The tonal range is OK although once you adjust the WB, you may want to increase contrast a bit.
4 Before uploading, make sure the photo is in srgb color mode. I'm not sure what your camera mode is set to, maybe Adobe RGB. This sometimes could result in a colr shift although I don't see that problem here.

If you're not using post processing software, you need to know that most digital photos come out of the camera needing some work-especially sharpening. So, I suggest a light program like Photoshop Elements would be great to start off with.

As for resolution, I see no signs of JPG compression problems, so I do NOT think resolution is your problem.

Hope that helps,

strat1117 · Dec 14, 2009

HoustonianYankee said:
Neil,

I've looked at your posts here at my work PC, where the monitor is not calibrated. Nevertheless, I'd think that most people do not calibrate their monitors unless you're seriously into photography. That being daid, there are a few observations I can make:
1: The White balance appears to be off. It may need to have a slight adjustment.
2: The depth of field is severely constrained. The area of focus is very smal and I believe this results in a rather unnatural focus on your poor dog's snout. I can tell you that most folks would have a problem with that kind of attention being called to their nose!
3: Color appears fine aside from the WB issue I mentioned. The tonal range is OK although once you adjust the WB, you may want to increase contrast a bit.
4 Before uploading, make sure the photo is in srgb color mode. I'm not sure what your camera mode is set to, maybe Adobe RGB. This sometimes could result in a colr shift although I don't see that problem here.

If you're not using post processing software, you need to know that most digital photos come out of the camera needing some work-especially sharpening. So, I suggest a light program like Photoshop Elements would be great to start off with.

As for resolution, I see no signs of JPG compression problems, so I do NOT think resolution is your problem.

Hope that helps,

Thanks -- I know that I have a lot to learn. On my home computer, that picture of my poodle really pops -- her snout looks like its jutting out of the screen. It doesn't have that same effect once posted. I do use the rudimentary Microsoft photo editing tools, but perhaps I should try using something a little more elegant, like photoshop.

I'm also playing around with the different modes of my camera, trying to learn what will work best, and also lighting. I've taken some pictures in a different room (better lighting and white background), using the "A" mode instead of full auto mode. This allowed me, among other things, to force the ISO to 200, as suggested by another poster, and, also, to use flash fill even though the light permitted a picture without flash.

I think the results are much better. Now, of course, I need to go read some more so that, hopefully, I can understand why!

Another HUGE THANK YOU to all of you who are taking the time to read this thread and offer your advice. I truly appreciate it -- the wealth of knowledge that we members share with one another in so many different pursuits is exactly what makes this community so great. :thumbup1:

rickboone1 · Dec 14, 2009

82R100 said:
I'd advise that you upload the picture to the Gallery as described in the sticky for this forum. It might compress/reduce the picture less than what's happening right now. Camera resolution's not going to have much effect, as what we're seeing as the end result is 600 X 399 pixels = 0.24 MPixels.

- Chris

There is a size limit on uploaded photos to the thread, yes? There's your answer.

strat1117 · Dec 14, 2009

Photobucket:

Direct:

Is it just the difference in size, or does the photobucket version look better than the direct upload version? (I wish I could figure out how to resize the photobucket version, to make a better comparison.)

Barber-Eile · Dec 14, 2009

The photobucket version does look better and yes, it is because of the size of it.
You eye will be drawn to the center of the screen and that's where the nose will hit the eye first. In the smaller version your view is drawn to the dog's eyes first and them to it's nose so the impact is lost somewhat.

Humans are programmed to look for the eyesin photos but with the bigger one because the nose is so big and in sharp focus then it catches the eye first which gives the intended impact.

strat1117 · Dec 14, 2009

Barber-Eile said:
The photobucket version does look better and yes, it is because of the size of it.
You eye will be drawn to the center of the screen and that's where the nose will hit the eye first. In the smaller version your view is drawn to the dog's eyes first and them to it's nose so the impact is lost somewhat.

Humans are programmed to look for the eyesin photos but with the bigger one because the nose is so big and in sharp focus then it catches the eye first which gives the intended impact.

Here is my SOTD picture done both ways, and it also looks much sharper in the photobucket version. I can't help but feel that there is more to it than just size, although I do not discount the possibility.

Photobucket:

Direct to B&B:

And resized in photobucket:

Barber-Eile · Dec 14, 2009

I used to work full time as a professional photographer, I still do it freelance. When showing photos to client you show them as big as you can (I used to work in a place that would project them the size of a wall!)

Basically I can't see any difference, technically, between your shots.
Your point of focus in both shots is on a point that has a lot of fine detail (the dog's nose, the shaving brush). In the larger photo you can see this detail clearly and is makes it look much better. And because the focus point looks better it means that your shallow depth of field will look better and have more impact.

When a photo is smaller the depth of field holds less impact. Obviously it's still there and still the same, but the actual physical on screen distance between the in-focus stuff and the out-of-focus stuff is bigger in a bigger image and you can therefore see the progressive blurring better.

Now I'm open for correction on all of this and this is obviously just my opinion, but it honestly doesn't strike me as a compression or a calibration problem as both images are the same...
But being able to see each individual hair on the brush clearly or the shine on the dogs nostril will create a viewing difference.

82R100 · Dec 14, 2009

Since a pixel viewed on the website is of a fixed size, the extra size is indicative of extra resolution on the larger pictures.

The larger dog shot is 1,024 X 680 vs. the 600 X 399 of the smaller shot.

I can also read all of the metadata of the picture file:

Nikon D5000 camera
f 5.6
0.008 sec exposure time, etc.

- Chris

strat1117 · Dec 14, 2009

Barber-Eile said:
I used to work full time as a professional photographer, I still do it freelance. When showing photos to client you show them as big as you can (I used to work in a place that would project them the size of a wall!)

Basically I can't see any difference, technically, between your shots.
Your point of focus in both shots is on a point that has a lot of fine detail (the dog's nose, the shaving brush). In the larger photo you can see this detail clearly and is makes it look much better. And because the focus point looks better it means that your shallow depth of field will look better and have more impact.

When a photo is smaller the depth of field holds less impact. Obviously it's still there and still the same, but the actual physical on screen distance between the in-focus stuff and the out-of-focus stuff is bigger in a bigger image and you can therefore see the progressive blurring better.

Now I'm open for correction on all of this and this is obviously just my opinion, but it honestly doesn't strike me as a compression or a calibration problem as both images are the same...
But being able to see each individual hair on the brush clearly or the shine on the dogs nostril will create a viewing difference.

I tried in vain to resize it in photobucket so the comparison would make more sense, but somehow, even after I resize it, it is coming back to full size when I move it to B&B.

EDIT -- I guess the resizing took a few seconds to take effect? I still see a qualitative difference (look at the writing on the handle of the brush), although it is minute compared to the apparent difference in the larger format.

I will be working on my depth of field issues by shooting in aperture preferred ("A") mode, to see if I can duplicate the clarity I see in the large photos in a smaller format.

Thanks again.

82R100 said:
Since a pixel viewed on the website is of a fixed size, the extra size is indicative of extra resolution on the larger pictures.

The larger dog shot is 1,024 X 680 vs. the 600 X 399 of the smaller shot.

I can also read all of the metadata of the picture file:

Nikon D5000 camera
f 5.6
0.008 sec exposure time, etc.

- Chris

Thanks!

This makes sense to me, Chris. The question becomes -- what, if anything, can I do to make the smaller pictures look as sharp as the larger?

Oh, and stop reading my metadata!! :laugh:

miamijuggler · Dec 14, 2009

After looking carefully at your images, I have to be of the opinion that it really comes down to a simple matter of image size.

I worked for a project digitizing art and architecture slides, so image fidelity was important, and honestly, I can't see any significant difference in the amount of detail of the photobucket vs. direct upload images (talking about the images of roughly the same size). The only other thing that I can think of that might be a fly in the proverbial ointment is the web browser.

Have you tried viewing these images (on these forums) in a different browser? Sometimes there can be small differences in the way that different browsers render an image visually. It might also be the blue default background of the forums. Perhaps you're used to viewing your images on a different color background, which may cause them to "pop" more.

But with the images I'm seeing, my gut feeling is that there is no significant difference in sharpness (aside from the minor difference in size). The short, easy answer is that larger images have more of an impact, and the web often forces us to go for smaller image sizes to save bandwidth. Unfortunately, smaller images simply have less visual (and digital) information in themC'est la vie.

best of luck,

--miamijuggler

Search

Photo assistance respectfully requested

strat1117

chainfire

strat1117

chainfire

King G

mmack66

Barber-Eile

82R100

TimMechEngr

strat1117

HoustonianYankee

strat1117

rickboone1

strat1117

Barber-Eile

strat1117

Barber-Eile

82R100

strat1117

miamijuggler

Similar threads