gschlact wrote in post #17387600
I couldn't agree more, the small I, ages posted here without links to the original full resolution tells us nothing about the original. (that hawk portrait still made me say wow)
However, I think there is a corollary to your observation that many downsized images look nice and sharp. . I have seen downsized images that weren't that impressive either way wrt sharpness, but when looking at the original at 100% gave the wow.
That's because the processing was soft. When you downsize, the range of resulting sharpness is tremendous. Witness Photoshop's choices of "bicubic (softer)" and "bicubic (sharper)".
Pondrader's shots come to mind (foxes) . My guess is that he processed for full res and this site did the downres. How do you explain the difference, I doubt too many people are processing for the smaller size. . Does Flick (pomdrader) downres differently than their sites engine?
Sure, a lot can happen to an image from the time it is uploaded to a host, and the software here displays it. If the image needs to be downsized to the size limits here, anything could happen to it. That's why I prepare images myself to be displayed within the rules of a web site, if I want them to be seen correctly, pixel-wise.