 |
|
|
UER Store
|
|
sweet UER decals:
|
|
|
 Ian
     
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
 |  | Gallery picture blurrification?
< on 1/26/2006 6:24 PM >
|  | | | OK, so I recently purchased a cheapo negative scanner so that I could post reasonably sharp images online. We ain't talking high enough quality that I could print a decent 8X10 from the scan, but they at least give the general idea of what the print would look like. However, when I create galleries on UER, my pictures become smaller, blurry messes. I swear I'm not taking pictures with a cell phone cam and desaturating them in Photoslop - what's going on?
|
|
Avatar-X
   
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| |  | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 1 on 1/26/2006 6:46 PM >
| | | | Please link me to an example of this "blurry mess" and also if you could upload the original file to this location:
www.uer.ca/filedump
(the 'before it's blurry' one)
Thanks
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
Ian
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
| | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 2 on 1/26/2006 6:57 PM >
| | | | OK, here's the link:
http://www.uer.ca/...l.asp?picid=154029
And I uploaded the file, "31.JPG", to that page.
Notice how the branches of the tree lose much of their detail, the name of the building gets all blurry, the power lines are surrounded by strangeness, and the change in tones especially in the shadow regions is more abrupt...
|
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 3 on 1/26/2006 7:25 PM >
| | | | UER recompresses your image to save on bandwidth. You'll note that your file is 300k, while the UER version is 84k.
To maximize quality, I suggest you upload a version with a larger dimension (say 1024 wide or 1280 wide), so that when UER shrinks it down it has more to work with.
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
Ian
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
| | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 4 on 1/26/2006 7:26 PM >
| | | | Ah cool - thanks.
|
|
dev
Passed away September 23rd, 2006.
| | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 5 on 1/26/2006 8:21 PM >
| | | | or, alternately, use the save-for-web function in photoshop and compress properly (for this forum, perhaps 600px on the biggest axis, and < 100kb) in the first place so you don't leave the jpeg recompress to an unknown quantity.
i've noticed this myself; images that i run thru the resize/recompress in xnview or irfanview come out with many more jaggies and artifacts than the ones that i put through photoshop.
when it comes to things as simple as a resize and recompress, you get what you pay for:
the webserver doing it for you with whatever algorithms it has
the opensource / freeware alternatives of XnView or IrfanView
the pro-level quality of photoshop.
and if you spend the time to use photoshop, you can tweak the levels, curves, contrast, and run some unsharp mask while you're at it, and perhaps post some really nice shit!
|
|
Ian
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
| | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 6 on 1/26/2006 8:52 PM >
| | | | Posted by dev
or, alternately, use the save-for-web function in photoshop and compress properly (for this forum, perhaps 600px on the biggest axis, and < 100kb) in the first place so you don't leave the jpeg recompress to an unknown quantity.
...
and if you spend the time to use photoshop, you can tweak the levels, curves, contrast, and run some unsharp mask while you're at it, and perhaps post some really nice shit!
|
Thanks for the tips! Assuming I have Photoslop, which if I do it's a 100% legal copy, I will definitely use it to compress my images from now on.
However, I will not tweak my images in it - I don't believe that negatives should be messed with outside the darkroom.
Good thing my "basement lightproofing" mission is almost complete, and my enlarger is just about ready to be put into good use! 
|
|
Mr. X
Location: Minneapolis, MN
Gender: Male
| | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 7 on 1/26/2006 9:20 PM >
| | | | Posted by Leviathan
However, I will not tweak my images in it - I don't believe that negatives should be messed with outside the darkroom.
|
Using photo editing software on digital images is the equivalent of performing darkroom techniques for traditional media. You're not crossing some sort of purist ethical line by correcting contrast in Photoshop. Besides, you're already "tweaking" your images by resizing and cropping.
There's nothing wrong with using a digital tool to present your digital image the way it looks in the analog world. I guarantee you've lost sharpness during scanning and if your scanner is anything like mine the color reproduction is skewed toward magenta and the contrast is washed out.
Certified Trunk Spelunker |
|
Ian
This member has been banned. See the banlist for more information.
Location: The County of Kings
Gender: Male
"Great architecture has only two natural enemies: water, and stupid men."
| | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 8 on 1/26/2006 10:09 PM >
| | | | Posted by Mr. X
Using photo editing software on digital images is the equivalent of performing darkroom techniques for traditional media. You're not crossing some sort of purist ethical line by correcting contrast in Photoshop. Besides, you're already "tweaking" your images by resizing and cropping.
There's nothing wrong with using a digital tool to present your digital image the way it looks in the analog world. I guarantee you've lost sharpness during scanning and if your scanner is anything like mine the color reproduction is skewed toward magenta and the contrast is washed out.
|
If Photoslop came with some sort of accurate "darkroom emulation" tools, I might use those - but in my experience, the burn and dodge tools in Photoslop are almost entirely unlike actual burning and dodging; I guess what I'm saying is that my problem isn't with digital editing per se, but rather with the fact that the digital editing really isn't the equivalent of darkroom techniques. I do crop and contrast adjust, as there really isn't a significant difference between the digital and analogue (multigrade paper & filters) versions of these techniques. But I've seen people use Photoshop to take legitimate blur off of crappy negatives and so on - that's cheating.
As for the color reproduction, I do very little C41 - I only home-develop B&W, and hate relying on labs for results.
|
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 9 on 1/27/2006 1:55 AM >
| | | | Photoshop is not a tool to emulate the darkroom. It is a photomanipulation and editing tool.
The UER server will always recompress your uploaded files, even if they are below 100k. The reason for this is to standardize the format. Any EXIF data is removed, any thumbnails or custom JPG extensions are removed, the files are saved the same way with non-progressive format.
Sorry, but that's just how it is.
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
dev
Passed away September 23rd, 2006.
| | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 10 on 1/27/2006 2:24 AM >
| | | | Posted by Avatar-X
Photoshop is not a tool to emulate the darkroom. It is a photomanipulation and editing tool.
|
That's a can of worms that we really shouldn't get into.
Photoshop is Photoshop. End of story.
Posted by Avatar-X
The UER server will always recompress your uploaded files, even if they are below 100k. The reason for this is to standardize the format. Any EXIF data is removed, any thumbnails or custom JPG extensions are removed, the files are saved the same way with non-progressive format.
|
However, it would be nice if the server had some bounds; stripping all the extraneous information off the file is a good idea, but the forced re-compress (even if the file fits the description (<600px on a side, <100kb)) just ruins some images.
Not that it affects me; I refuse to upload anything other than illegal MP3's to your server, given your concept of public domain and copyright. No offense, but I like having control over content that I have created.
--dev
PS: don't get angry, i'm just calling it as it is. not trying to start a flamewar or any bullshit like that. so just keep it chill, av!!
|
|
Avatar-X
Alpha Husky
Location: West Coast
Gender: Male
yay!
| | | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 11 on 1/27/2006 4:37 AM >
| | | | I don't have that direct control over the JPG manipulation process. I merely feed the file into a server-side image component, which resizes it and saves it out at a certain quality level, stripping out all the extras in the process. If the quality is not good enough for you, you can upload a higher-res original so it has more to work with.
As for my concept of "copyright" and "public domain" -- any images uploaded to the server remain your images. You own the copyright and in no way are you giving UER that copyright. However, by uploading the image, you are granting UER a license to display that image on the UER website.
Some images can be removed by you, some can be removed on request. Others cannot be removed, and you will have to accept that, since you have already granted the license.
Text content posted into the forums is once again your copyright -- UER can't publish your posts in a book to make money, for example. However, you have granted UER a license to display that content on the UER website. Unlike images, posts will not be removed on request, except in VERY extreme circumstances. To give you an idea of how extreme, this has only been done twice in the history of UER, to protect the poster's identity.
As with anything you do, if you disagree with UER's policies, you can either not upload any content, or you can simply leave. If you feel you have a valid reason for disagreeing, you may open a topic of discussion on the subject. But don't forget that anything you post in such a topic would still fall under the existing policies.
-av
huskies - such fluff. |
|
Crossfire
Location: Kay-Dub
Gender: Male
Don't call it a comeback, I've been here for years.
| |  |  | | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 12 on 1/27/2006 8:27 PM >
| | | | Posted by Avatar-X
Photoshop is not a tool to emulate the darkroom. It is a photomanipulation and editing tool.
|
Unless, of course, you know how to properly use the software. But that's a technicality.
Disgruntled. |
|
lopix
Location: Ontario
Gender: Male
I survive on the poison you're feeding me
| | | Re: Gallery picture blurrification?
<Reply # 13 on 2/3/2006 11:13 PM >
| | | | Posted by Avatar-X
To maximize quality, I suggest you upload a version with a larger dimension (say 1024 wide or 1280 wide), so that when UER shrinks it down it has more to work with.
|
Interesting, I always thought it was best to upload an image that was closer to the final size. Which is better, large or small image Av?
I'm not angry - just focused :: No human opinion is higher than the truth
http://www.lopix.com :: http://www.dkphotogroup.com |
|
|
|
All content and images copyright © 2002-2024 UER.CA and respective creators. Graphical Design by Crossfire.
To contact webmaster, or click to email with problems or other questions about this site:
UER CONTACT
View Terms of Service |
View Privacy Policy |
Server colocation provided by Beanfield
This page was generated for you in 171 milliseconds. Since June 23, 2002, a total of 739367576 pages have been generated.
|
|
