Picture quality

[paddy]

I am still struggling with my picture quality, its odd but on my computer they look very good but uploaded they lose a lot.
Playing around this morning i found taking the picture in Nikon Raw and saving it as a 1000 width Jpeg this is 400k

I then saved it from raw as a PNG file at 3000 width and 8Mb and i cant show that here because of the size

I then moved the PNG file into photoshop and saved it as a jpeg again at 3000 wide and put it on Flickr


amazing transformation, look at the gold parts of the engine.

A bit round the houses but i think if i cut out the PNG bit i will be where i want to be. Probably not worth it for all pictures but the second picture now looks like the first appears on my PC which is what i was aiming for.

 

[moon puppy]

Paddy when we moved our hosting over to the current site one of the issues we have is disk space. The new host has to compress the images as low as he can to conserve space, that's probably what you're seeing here.

 

[paddy]

Its not a criticism Bob What you do here is beyond anyone expectations, i wish you would rattle that tip jar more often
Its just something that has puzzled me for some time and it happens on all the sites i use, not just here.
I wonder if there is a better file to save to other than a jpeg.

 

[Tojo72]

They look pretty good,my pictures are usually crap

 

[Paulw]

Is your camera a point n shoot or a "real camera"? The reason I asked is because you may have a lens that may not be up to your specs. Lenses can be an expensive solution. Right now, I can't justify purchasing any new lenses so that I can get away from my phone camera. I have DOF problems with the selection of lenses that I have. I also have a rather large light box, but I still have problems with not getting my images sharp. I have also tried running them through my three AI editing tools, but no joy.

Anyway, I really can't see much difference between the two, and your pics are always spot on.

 

[paddy]

i was using a Nikon 7200 and a Nicor 60mm F4 lens, should be fine at this size. its probably your screen resolution that making the pictures look the same . Anyway problem solved if i use a hosting site.

 

[Heavens Eagle]

I gave up on my 3500 as it has never worked right and gone back to my L30 point and shoot. I usually tweak my brightness and contrast with it a little and it makes a difference. The photos I upload are usually 250k to 350k when I get done. That isn't bad for a slightly bigger than 1024x768 photo.

 

[Rhino]

Paddy when we moved our hosting over to the current site one of the issues we have is disk space. The new host has to compress the images as low as he can to conserve space, that's probably what you're seeing here.

Does it help with disc space to post thumbnails, rather than full sized images?

 

[moon puppy]

I'm not worried about diskspace now, don't even know if I have access to see it at this point. Post away, if you only do thumbnails we can't see what you do.

 

[Heavens Eagle]

Does it help with disc space to post thumbnails, rather than full sized images?

I can answer this as the site still has to store the full size image. The thumbnail can only help when loading a page on a really slow internet connection.
What used to give me fits was folks loading twenty 2Mb photos in a single post.