Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
Thread started 02 Dec 2018 (Sunday) 07:57
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Difference in apparant sharpness when JPEGs are viewed in Photoshop and in a Browser

 
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,305 posts
Likes: 7428
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 05, 2018 11:01 |  #31

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18764826 (external link)
Yes the second image is not heavily cropped so starts from a better place, seemed to be the new workflow partly compensated for difference in sharpness, but it is hard to be sure. I am wary of overcooking.

Second dog looks better and not overcooked. I used LR only on this and I use Safari. I have noticed on other sites files don't look as good.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,835 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5062
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Dec 05, 2018 11:32 |  #32

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18764798 (external link)
So looking at remedial action I found increasing JPEG output sharpening did not really help and to my looked worse. What might look better is some additional sharpening prior to down sampling and the existing output sharpening.

Standard first, followed by additional pre-DS sampling.

What do people think, worth adopting?
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Lester Wareham in
./showthread.php?p=187​64798&i=i57334943
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Lester Wareham in
./showthread.php?p=187​64798&i=i189950497
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

#2 is slightly sharper but much less sharp than many bird shots on POTN. The same goes for the wild-dog pair. I'm viewing on a good screen (Retina) with Firefox.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,246 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2047
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Dec 05, 2018 11:44 |  #33

I looked at these earlier, quite a bit of compression artifacts around the neck and shoulder in the original online sample linked to on the first page. Have you posted your compression settings and how you are saving them?

Sorry if I missed it, kinda being pulled different directions today, as usual.

Honestly, I would pick a better image to begin to gauge this problem. Something without all the white area and super high contrast edges.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
27,390 posts
Gallery: 2802 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 12312
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Dec 05, 2018 11:51 |  #34

OhLook wrote in post #18764865 (external link)
#2 is slightly sharper but much less sharp than many bird shots on POTN. The same goes for the wild-dog pair. I'm viewing on a good screen (Retina) with Firefox.

I though the wild dogs were OK, if I look in on the originals all the hair detail is there, seems visible in the JPEG.

Here are a couple of 100% crops of the sharpened TIFF secondary master.

The sharpening level seems OK here to me, what do you think?


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
27,390 posts
Gallery: 2802 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 12312
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
Post edited 2 months ago by Lester Wareham.
     
Dec 05, 2018 11:59 |  #35

My inflight shots are often not as good as they should be, perhaps down to skill levels, others with identical kit are much better.
100% shots of the sharpened TIFF of the Red Kite and another (static bird shot), The second seems ok to me.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
27,390 posts
Gallery: 2802 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 12312
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Dec 05, 2018 12:00 |  #36

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18764870 (external link)
I looked at these earlier, quite a bit of compression artifacts around the neck and shoulder in the original online sample linked to on the first page. Have you posted your compression settings and how you are saving them?

Sorry if I missed it, kinda being pulled different directions today, as usual.

Honestly, I would pick a better image to begin to gauge this problem. Something without all the white area and super high contrast edges.

Yes the photoshop setting a level 6 baseline, a compromise with quality and memory usage.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,246 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2047
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
     
Dec 05, 2018 12:21 |  #37

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18764877 (external link)
Yes the photoshop setting a level 6 baseline, a compromise with quality and memory usage.

So, Save as > JPG?


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
27,390 posts
Gallery: 2802 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 12312
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Dec 05, 2018 12:58 as a reply to  @ Left Handed Brisket's post |  #38

Yes.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
17,835 posts
Gallery: 72 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 5062
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Dec 05, 2018 13:26 |  #39

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18764873 (external link)
I though the wild dogs were OK, if I look in on the originals all the hair detail is there, seems visible in the JPEG.

Here are a couple of 100% crops of the sharpened TIFF secondary master.

The sharpening level seems OK here to me, what do you think?
thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Lester Wareham in
./showthread.php?p=187​64873&i=i106947388
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

thumbnail
Hosted photo: posted by Lester Wareham in
./showthread.php?p=187​64873&i=i155523628
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

When I make everything on the screen 5 or 6 steps smaller, the detail in those attachments is great, showing that they have the wherewithal to yield sharp final versions–but reducing digitally doesn't have the same effect. I asked about softness in this thread and got lots of information, some of which I understood.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,305 posts
Likes: 7428
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 05, 2018 13:36 |  #40

If anyone is using PS the PixelGenius group made PK Sharpener free. It used to be $100. Similar export process as LR (they designed it) which takes the guesswork out of sharpening. Of course you can tweak it after a bit for screen. Not having to guess for export is one main reason I stuck with LR.

http://www.pixelgenius​.com (external link)


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Left ­ Handed ­ Brisket
That's my line!
Avatar
9,246 posts
Gallery: 12 photos
Likes: 2047
Joined Jun 2011
Location: The Uwharrie Mts, NC
Post edited 2 months ago by Left Handed Brisket.
     
Dec 05, 2018 13:50 |  #41

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18764915 (external link)
Yes.

I would seriously, seriously suggest never using that method unless you are just looking for a quick, no fuss export. Save for Web and Devices is a much more powerful tool.

To start, choosing an image file size that you think is reasonable for the number of images on that page and that allows a reasonable page download speed for your viewers is a must. Do some testing on your own, but I bet you see that even half meg (500KB) images load very quickly. If I remember the file you posted was about 200K, the file digital paradise posted was 550K, why throw away all that detail if it doesnt really impact most viewer? You can either get close to a preferred file size with the first screen, or you can choose the dropdown menu that allows you to optimize for file size you have chosen ... Ps will choose the settings for you.

You also have the ability to preview before and after and even use 4-up to see the effect of different settings on compression. Some images will compress much more easily than others. Always choose baseline optimized.

To back up a little, uploading files to the POTN server can put them through another compression process. It makes it really hard for us to know if we are seeing the same thing you see with the original files. If you can upload them to dropbox we can see the original unaltered files.


PSA: The above post may contain sarcasm, reply at your own risk | Not in gear database: Auto Sears 50mm 2.0 / 3x CL-360, Nikon SB-28, SunPak auto 322 D, Minolta 20

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
digital ­ paradise
How do I change this?
Avatar
14,305 posts
Likes: 7428
Joined Oct 2009
     
Dec 05, 2018 16:16 |  #42

I don't see a difference between my desktop or uploading here otherwise I wouldn't use it.


Image Editing OK

Website (external link) ~ Buy/Sell Feedback

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
27,390 posts
Gallery: 2802 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 12312
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Dec 06, 2018 01:27 |  #43

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18764947 (external link)
I would seriously, seriously suggest never using that method unless you are just looking for a quick, no fuss export. Save for Web and Devices is a much more powerful tool.

To start, choosing an image file size that you think is reasonable for the number of images on that page and that allows a reasonable page download speed for your viewers is a must. Do some testing on your own, but I bet you see that even half meg (500KB) images load very quickly. If I remember the file you posted was about 200K, the file digital paradise posted was 550K, why throw away all that detail if it doesnt really impact most viewer? You can either get close to a preferred file size with the first screen, or you can choose the dropdown menu that allows you to optimize for file size you have chosen ... Ps will choose the settings for you.

You also have the ability to preview before and after and even use 4-up to see the effect of different settings on compression. Some images will compress much more easily than others. Always choose baseline optimized.

To back up a little, uploading files to the POTN server can put them through another compression process. It makes it really hard for us to know if we are seeing the same thing you see with the original files. If you can upload them to dropbox we can see the original unaltered files.

I did use that when I first used PS, but my current process just runs as an action, the save for web is interactive AFAIK. Also the resampling algorithm is I believe the same. The advantage in save for web is trading off compression level and memory usage I believe.

But the problem is not the quality of the files but how different applications present them.

I do wonder if it is photoshop that is out of step here.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
27,390 posts
Gallery: 2802 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 12312
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Dec 06, 2018 01:33 |  #44

OhLook wrote in post #18764932 (external link)
When I make everything on the screen 5 or 6 steps smaller, the detail in those attachments is great, showing that they have the wherewithal to yield sharp final versions–but reducing digitally doesn't have the same effect. I asked about softness in this thread and got lots of information, some of which I understood.

I’ll read through your thread Oh Look, but my understanding of what you discribe is the unavoidable loss of micro contrast when downsampling an image.

When I last looked into this the bicubic sharper method was ment to be the best normally available. (There is probably a mathematically optical method that might be better I don’t know; typical those sort of algorithms are not practical).


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Lester ­ Wareham
THREAD ­ STARTER
Moderator
Avatar
27,390 posts
Gallery: 2802 photos
Best ofs: 6
Likes: 12312
Joined Jul 2005
Location: Hampshire, UK
     
Dec 06, 2018 03:51 |  #45

@LHB

So as I as JPEG save method is "another issue", but to just close the look I saved both these test files using SFW in two versions, one quality 60 and the other with the quality set to give about the same file size as my standard workflow.

These don't seem to be any better or worse than the standard workflow to my eye.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


My Photography Home Page (external link) RSS Feed (external link)
Gear List
FAQ on UV and Clear Protective Filters
Macrophotography by LordV

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

2,219 views & 9 likes for this thread
Difference in apparant sharpness when JPEGs are viewed in Photoshop and in a Browser
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos RAW, Post Processing & Printing 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is joni H
812 guests, 320 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.