Anyone else noticed this? Even though I'm barely sharpening my pictures when editing (and if I do, it's very selective), my pictures look kind of overly sharp after the upload; and some objects would get "edges" which are not there on the version I have on my hard drive, and they look somewhat fringed.
I always upload my pictures with a length side of 550 pixel to avoid compressing, and usually they are not bigger than 300 kB. But still, they look weird. Or maybe something's just wrong with my graphic card... :-/
I see what you mean. I did not notice it on the ladybug macro though. Do you feel that one looks overly sharp as well? You have me stumped as I am just a beginner and do not know much about compression and all. I do see what you are talking about in some of your pictures. It would be interested to me to know what you think about your ladybug capture and if you think that one is ok, than maybe you could compare what you did there opposed to the others???
Yes, that one also (but there are worse ones). For comparison, please check the same picture on my webspace (I have just removed these two white spots on the bug, and that little thread hanging down from the bud; something I forgot yesterday before I uploaded my picture here). http://www.catmom.de/2012/may_03.jpg
On my laptop I don't see them sharper. Your ladybug appears sharper on your website than here. For my own pics, I've never noticed this, it's usually the other way around, sharper on my computer than on 365.
Not sure of a solution but I always think my pics look worse after uploading than they do on my laptop. Doesn't matter whether its here or FB both sites have some issues.
@scatcat : Really? For me, it's the other way around, on my website (as well as on fotocommunity.de where I'm also uploading pictures) they appear much "softer", not so "harsh". @shirljess : Glad you can see it. :-) I think there isn't much I can do, guess it's a compressing thing that happens on the 365 server. @peadar : I'm using Corel Photopaint 11. @hollandcrew : True, they do look weird on FB lately. :-/ Noticed the same!
I like the waterfront photo better here on 365 than on you website to be truthful... At one point I felt that my photos were being over sharpened last year but recently the problem hasn't been troubling me anymore. Maybe I'm just getting used to the sharpened look?
If you use JPG it is a lossy format. Most people (erroneously) think that it is quick and easy to use jpg. In fact it is better to use RAW in camera and convert to jpg later. This is because the camera does a conversion to jpg. It manipulates the file - sharpening it about 4 points. Then it brightens the picture by about 50 points and brings up the contrast relative to an average tonal range in the picture. Next the camera dumps most of the rest of the data. This leaves the picture viewable but according to the manufacturers interpretation of the jpg programme and already compressed. Depending on the camera the compression can be higher or lower. And it depends on what form of jpg compression you have chosen. Most DSLRs offer you S, M, or L files. Small ones are more highly compressed.
As most jpg files have about 200 times less data in them than in the RAW file. This means that there is very little adjustment left for you to make changes. You probably don't need to make changes because the picture is 'eyeable'. But even if you sharpen it a tiny bit the quality is significantly affected because of all the prior manipulation and the data dump.
But now you resize it. According to the jpg algorithm this involves another sharpen!
THEN, you sharpen it. Further data loss and picture damage. Then, once you upload it, the system does a further compression in order to download it to your screen. The jpg algorithm for compression includes an extra sharpening and further data loss.
So as you can imagine your data is pretty compressed now. Thus it looks over sharpened. However, you may also find artefacts in the sky and colour banding in some shot.
Significantly, the software you use if you process your jpg files has a big impact on the compression process. Most software that does the sharpening and compression can have the settings changes. Most jpgs (not all by any means), if processed from RAW out of camera, can stand about 50% compression and a reasonable sharpen (twice) without significant damage. But if you have all the above going on you will probably find you will be well below that.
Remedy...
= Shoot RAW. It will give you far superior quality and control over your shots. You will be able to control the colours and make amendments without damage and control the compression.
= Do all your work in a RAW format, archive format like tiff or in a graphics format - eg the file format your editor uses (eg. psd for photoshop) this will allow you to do all the changes you want without damage to the file. Then when you have the file ready you can produce the final output to meet your needs - which will give you the size and compression data dump at the appropriate level without damage - and leave you an original file to go back to for further editing.
= If you insist in lowering the quality of your shots and shooting jpg make sure you chose the 'Large' format jpg conversion in camera.
= Minimise or do not process in-camera jpgs after they are removed from the camera.
= Do not resize (another sharpen).
= If you have to process then make sure that the compression ratio in the software is changed to less on output to minimise damage. Remembering it has already been compressed in camera set the compression to no less than '7' or 70% (depending on how your software is calibrated).
= Try not to sharpen - this will be sharpened again once, possibly twice in the system.
= Remember that EVERY time you open your jpg file for editing (not viewing) you will damage it further on saving. So you can expect the quality to deteriorate continuously every time you edit.
@netkonnexion : This was really interesting and enlightening; thanks a lot! Makes sense to me! The funny thing is, only yesterday I've been told in another photography forum to use RAW (not because of the problem I mentioned here, but for white balance issues). So, maybe I should really give it a try! I photographed in RAW a while ago, but the only RAW converter I had was Canon DPP, and I didn't like the way my JPGs turned after that; but maybe I did something wrong. Need to give it another try.
@aspada : Well, yes, maybe you really got used to it. Years ago, before I had my first DSLR, I sharpened my pictures to the max, but now I don't like that anymore.
I'm sorry, I don't know Corel Photopaint 11. According to my Lightroom manual (if I am reading it correctly) the effect is caused by chromatic aberation, defined as the inability of the sensor to focus across different wavelengths at the same distance. I'm not sure I even know what that means, but if you have a chromatic aberation correction in Corel, maybe that's a clue.
On another thread, I also saw a mention of colour spaces making a big difference between what you see on your PC and what you get on the 365 upload. If I recall correctly, the recommendation was to shoot in sRGB, as this was most compatible with the way images are displayed on 365.
Anyway, this is all a bit beyond my understanding, but perhaps I've provided some hints for further investigation???
@peadar : Yes, I'm having CA issues with one of my lenses, but that looks different.
As for shooting in sRGG, I think my camera does that, but have to check that out. :-)
Hm, my photos always look softer, not sharper, after uploading to this site. I don't have the option of shooting in RAW format with my P&S, but it's something I'll look into when I upgrade. Thanks for the info, @netkonnexion .
@chard I've noticed the same. I post all my photos to both Flickr and 365project and they look much nicer of Flickr. The community is better on 365 though.
I would echo @netkonnexion's recommendation to shoot in RAW, but I would go further and say to not bother with the RAW+JPG mode. I used to use this mode for quite some time, just to hedge my bets. As expected, the camera slowed down when writing files because it is writing a huge RAW file in addition to the JPG file. What I didn't expect is that moving to shooting *only* RAW made my camera faster than JPG alone. I guess that this is becuse all the time is spent processing the RAW into a JPG rather than saving it to the card. Obviously, this means that my camera can shoot more shots in a burst which is useful at sport events, or with kids and animals.
If you shoot RAW and don't get along with Canon's Digital Photo Professional, or the Nikon equivalent, then I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom. Yes, I'm a fan boy! Lightroom 4 is half the price of Lightroom 3 so it's great value now. The reason I like it so much is it allows you to make edits to your RAW images without actually modifying the source data. This means that you can undo without fear of losing information in the image. It's a great tool.
@netkonnexion@damianpowell While on the subject of RAW... when you two import your photos into LR4 or Aperture or whatever... do you leave your files in the camera's original RAW (with sidecar) files or do you convert to DNG?
@aspada I tend to keep the original CR2 files with sidecar information. After doing some reading though, I think it would probably be entirely safe to use DNG. However, when I have modified an image in LR, I export the final result as DNG.
@aspada - I think it is pretty much a personal choice. Actually I always keep the orginal CR2 (Canon Raw files). When I save the LR or PS version I keep that as a PSD file. If I need an archive format I use TIFF because it is a recommended archive format with full data retention and the algorithm for producing it is open source so it will be recognised in centuries time. As I used to run an image archive in a library service I kind of got into that way of thinking.
Also, I agree with Damian that I would not personally shoot with RAW and JPEG. However, when I am teaching new students who are just learning to go to manual settings and just using RAW for the first time I suggest they do this to make sure they have a colour comparison standard to work with. People who first start working with RAW find their colour appreciation needs developing. So having a look at the JPEG gives you a clue about what you might use as a starting point for your RAW conversion. HOWEVER, jpeg is a poor converter. It is set so the manufacturers idea of an average exposure is created from the RAW. It is at best a compromise and not an optimisation for YOUR picture. In other words it generally gives a pleasing result. However, aspiring photogs who want to improve and push the limits will quickly find that jpeg is simply inadequate, restricted, poor quality and badly coloured for most pictures. To learn good colour appreciation and control spend time looking at a lot of good quality photographs every day. That will give you a clue about what really pops! Then try to emulate that in your RAW conversions. You will soon find your colour appreciation improving and you will not need to use jpg anymore.
Working with RAW, like working in any new discipline, is a journey. Learning the technical stuff helps, but is not mega important. What is more important is understanding the light and colour balance with your pictures. That is really a lifetime study. Working in jpeg is is a disability if you want to make a good job of that study.
Enjoy!
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
http://www.catmom.de/2012/may_03.jpg
Same version on my webspace:
http://www.catmom.de/2012/07-03.jpg
@shirljess : Glad you can see it. :-) I think there isn't much I can do, guess it's a compressing thing that happens on the 365 server.
@peadar : I'm using Corel Photopaint 11.
@hollandcrew : True, they do look weird on FB lately. :-/ Noticed the same!
If you use JPG it is a lossy format. Most people (erroneously) think that it is quick and easy to use jpg. In fact it is better to use RAW in camera and convert to jpg later. This is because the camera does a conversion to jpg. It manipulates the file - sharpening it about 4 points. Then it brightens the picture by about 50 points and brings up the contrast relative to an average tonal range in the picture. Next the camera dumps most of the rest of the data. This leaves the picture viewable but according to the manufacturers interpretation of the jpg programme and already compressed. Depending on the camera the compression can be higher or lower. And it depends on what form of jpg compression you have chosen. Most DSLRs offer you S, M, or L files. Small ones are more highly compressed.
As most jpg files have about 200 times less data in them than in the RAW file. This means that there is very little adjustment left for you to make changes. You probably don't need to make changes because the picture is 'eyeable'. But even if you sharpen it a tiny bit the quality is significantly affected because of all the prior manipulation and the data dump.
But now you resize it. According to the jpg algorithm this involves another sharpen!
THEN, you sharpen it. Further data loss and picture damage. Then, once you upload it, the system does a further compression in order to download it to your screen. The jpg algorithm for compression includes an extra sharpening and further data loss.
So as you can imagine your data is pretty compressed now. Thus it looks over sharpened. However, you may also find artefacts in the sky and colour banding in some shot.
Significantly, the software you use if you process your jpg files has a big impact on the compression process. Most software that does the sharpening and compression can have the settings changes. Most jpgs (not all by any means), if processed from RAW out of camera, can stand about 50% compression and a reasonable sharpen (twice) without significant damage. But if you have all the above going on you will probably find you will be well below that.
Remedy...
= Shoot RAW. It will give you far superior quality and control over your shots. You will be able to control the colours and make amendments without damage and control the compression.
= Do all your work in a RAW format, archive format like tiff or in a graphics format - eg the file format your editor uses (eg. psd for photoshop) this will allow you to do all the changes you want without damage to the file. Then when you have the file ready you can produce the final output to meet your needs - which will give you the size and compression data dump at the appropriate level without damage - and leave you an original file to go back to for further editing.
= If you insist in lowering the quality of your shots and shooting jpg make sure you chose the 'Large' format jpg conversion in camera.
= Minimise or do not process in-camera jpgs after they are removed from the camera.
= Do not resize (another sharpen).
= If you have to process then make sure that the compression ratio in the software is changed to less on output to minimise damage. Remembering it has already been compressed in camera set the compression to no less than '7' or 70% (depending on how your software is calibrated).
= Try not to sharpen - this will be sharpened again once, possibly twice in the system.
= Remember that EVERY time you open your jpg file for editing (not viewing) you will damage it further on saving. So you can expect the quality to deteriorate continuously every time you edit.
@aspada : Well, yes, maybe you really got used to it. Years ago, before I had my first DSLR, I sharpened my pictures to the max, but now I don't like that anymore.
On another thread, I also saw a mention of colour spaces making a big difference between what you see on your PC and what you get on the 365 upload. If I recall correctly, the recommendation was to shoot in sRGB, as this was most compatible with the way images are displayed on 365.
Anyway, this is all a bit beyond my understanding, but perhaps I've provided some hints for further investigation???
As for shooting in sRGG, I think my camera does that, but have to check that out. :-)
I would echo @netkonnexion's recommendation to shoot in RAW, but I would go further and say to not bother with the RAW+JPG mode. I used to use this mode for quite some time, just to hedge my bets. As expected, the camera slowed down when writing files because it is writing a huge RAW file in addition to the JPG file. What I didn't expect is that moving to shooting *only* RAW made my camera faster than JPG alone. I guess that this is becuse all the time is spent processing the RAW into a JPG rather than saving it to the card. Obviously, this means that my camera can shoot more shots in a burst which is useful at sport events, or with kids and animals.
If you shoot RAW and don't get along with Canon's Digital Photo Professional, or the Nikon equivalent, then I highly recommend Adobe Lightroom. Yes, I'm a fan boy! Lightroom 4 is half the price of Lightroom 3 so it's great value now. The reason I like it so much is it allows you to make edits to your RAW images without actually modifying the source data. This means that you can undo without fear of losing information in the image. It's a great tool.
@aspada - I think it is pretty much a personal choice. Actually I always keep the orginal CR2 (Canon Raw files). When I save the LR or PS version I keep that as a PSD file. If I need an archive format I use TIFF because it is a recommended archive format with full data retention and the algorithm for producing it is open source so it will be recognised in centuries time. As I used to run an image archive in a library service I kind of got into that way of thinking.
Also, I agree with Damian that I would not personally shoot with RAW and JPEG. However, when I am teaching new students who are just learning to go to manual settings and just using RAW for the first time I suggest they do this to make sure they have a colour comparison standard to work with. People who first start working with RAW find their colour appreciation needs developing. So having a look at the JPEG gives you a clue about what you might use as a starting point for your RAW conversion. HOWEVER, jpeg is a poor converter. It is set so the manufacturers idea of an average exposure is created from the RAW. It is at best a compromise and not an optimisation for YOUR picture. In other words it generally gives a pleasing result. However, aspiring photogs who want to improve and push the limits will quickly find that jpeg is simply inadequate, restricted, poor quality and badly coloured for most pictures. To learn good colour appreciation and control spend time looking at a lot of good quality photographs every day. That will give you a clue about what really pops! Then try to emulate that in your RAW conversions. You will soon find your colour appreciation improving and you will not need to use jpg anymore.
Working with RAW, like working in any new discipline, is a journey. Learning the technical stuff helps, but is not mega important. What is more important is understanding the light and colour balance with your pictures. That is really a lifetime study. Working in jpeg is is a disability if you want to make a good job of that study.
Enjoy!