National Geographic Yourshot Processing?

I'm trying to get a photo processed correctly for upload for the National Geographic "Equinox" Yourshot assignment.

The photograph looks like garbage after upload. It seems a bit darker, detail is being lost, and the image just generally looks "muddy" (for lack of a better word).

I've tried exporting at different sizes (1600 pixels across the long edge being the smallest, at 300 dpi), and no matter what it looks like garbage. I'm using sRGB.

This is the photograph, resized to 1280 for POTN (300dpi). It looks a touch darker than I would like, and the colours aren't quite as vibrant as they are before upload, but it looks so much better on POTN than it does on Yourshot. On Yourshot the photograph is totally disappointing, on POTN it is okay, if not great.

I think that you need to contact them.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #17945485
I think that you need to contact them.

I might do just that.

I was able to come up with something that rendered better on their website. I warmed up the WB and increased the vibrance. I also sharpened quite a bit more. I exported a 300 DPI file at 1600 pixels along the long edge, 8bit sRGB.

It works better, but there are still some artifacts and garbage in the image when it renders on the site.

I do, occasionally, upload an image here on POTN that renders poorly. But, I just delete the file and don't worry about tweaking and reposting the image.

FWIW, I don't know Yourshot at all...my workflow for web images is to work entirely in PS ProPhoto.
When finished with that stage, I will resize to 150 ppi and 1000 pixels on long side, then convert to 8 bit sRGB and
make additional adjustments to taste. Then save as a jpeg image at maximum compatibility.

chauncey wrote in post #17945518
FWIW, I don't know Yourshot at all...my workflow for web images is to work entirely in PS ProPhoto.
When finished with that stage, I will resize to 150 ppi and 1000 pixels on long side, then convert to 8 bit sRGB and
make additional adjustments to taste. Then save as a jpeg image at maximum compatibility.

I just had a look through your 1x site. You have got some spectacular work up on there! Your work is breathtaking. Are all of those are at 150 ppi? I tried to check the image data but right-click is disabled and the "info" button doesn't give me anything useful. The sharpness and detail far exceed what I thought a ppi that low would produce on screen.

The only really significant difference in our general process is the ppi: where I'm exporting at twice what you are. I double checked, and it is 300 PPI (not DPI) that I'm exporting at.

How did you choose 150 PPI?

neacail wrote in post #17945536
I just had a look through your 1x site. You have got some spectacular work up on there! Your work is breathtaking. Are all of those are at 150 ppi? I tried to check the image data but right-click is disabled and the "info" button doesn't give me anything useful. The sharpness and detail far exceed what I thought a ppi that low would produce on screen.

The only really significant difference in our general process is the ppi: where I'm exporting at twice what you are. I double checked, and it is 300 PPI (not DPI) that I'm exporting at.

How did you choose 150 PPI?

For screen display the PPI value setting is completely redundant. It has zero effect on how the image looks on screen. The PPI value used to be used to tell a printer OK print this image using 300 pixels per inch. Most modern printers work the opposite way in that you tell them what size you want to print at, and it picks a suitable PPI value. Anyway the PPI value isn't much use on an output device that for most screens has a fixed output resolution of between about 90 and 120 PPI, depending on the screen resolution and size. I could set a PPI value of 1 or 1000000 and it would look the same on screen.

There are times when software uses the PPI value for some things when presenting images on screen. In PS for example there is a Print size option in the zoom control, which if the screen resolution is accurately set in the preferences, will zoom the image to physically match a print at the selected PPI value. A use, but not that useful, and for most screens setting the zoom to 30% will get you very close to matching the look of a 300 PPI print.

First of all, for any image that is viewed on a screen, be it monitor or built-in display in a phone, tablet, etc., forget about PPI. The image will always be displayed at the PPI of the device displaying it and at that PPI alone, no matter what you write in the Exif tag attached to it. Only the pixel dimensions count. So an 800x1200 pixel 50 ppi, an 800x1200 pixel 150 ppi image and an 800x1200 pixel 300 ppi image will all look identical on the same monitor.

Second, I looked at the Your Shot site and although they specify a minimum of 1600 pixels long side, all the photos are being shown at 1250 pixels. So anything you upload will be resized to 1250. This being the case, I would give them 2500 pixels on the long side in order to make the resizing as easy as possible for their software.

As to color, all you can do is to give them sRGB and cross your fingers, keeping in mind that 90% of their viewers will be seeing different colors and brightness from what you see because they are using uncalibrated displays and non-color managed browsers and operating systems (phones probably).

Yeh, like Alan said.

tzalman wrote in post #17945575
Second, I looked at the Your Shot site and although they specify a minimum of 1600 pixels long side, all the photos are being shown at 1250 pixels. So anything you upload will be resized to 1250. This being the case, I would give them 2500 pixels on the long side in order to make the resizing as easy as possible for their software.

I totally missed that! The photos didn't look 1600 to me, but it never occurred to me to actually check. I'll try 2500.

Not to argue but simply to add the caveat for accuracy. While PPI has no effect on resolution. The value you choose PPI can/does effect how the "output sharpening" calculates. So the "zero effect" and "identical" while true in spirit aren't completely accurate.

travisvwright wrote in post #17945596
Not to argue but simply to add the caveat for accuracy. While PPI has no effect on resolution. The value you choose PPI can/does effect how the "output sharpening" calculates. So the "zero effect" and "identical" while true in spirit aren't completely accurate.

But only if you are exporting from ONE program: Adobe Lightroom. Since the OP didn't specify what software he was using I didn't mention it. I dod use LR and when I export for posting online I usually use a value of 100 PPI in the box in the export dialogue. I also then use Screen and High for the Output sharpening settings.

Elie given the number of times it seems that you have beaten me to the post button, it's only fair

Alan

Neacail,

Please post a link to your "bad" image on the NatGeo site. They don't have a search option, so we can't find it to help you analyze.
-----
Traviswright,

That's an interesting claim, that PPI affects sharpening. Never heard that before and have doubts. Can you show proof? What sharpening tool do you think gives different results depending on the PPI of the image?
-----

I'm not very familiar with the NatGeo site, but a quick review shows that images are being resized. Either by their server or by your browser when displayed. On my 1920x1200 screen, individual images display (in Chrome) at 1000x750. But the slideshow appears to display images at the max screen size less a few pixels for the navigation arrows.

So it might be wise to upload at a size larger than the 1600 minimum if you want people with wide screens (4K?) to see a full screen image in slideshow.

Redcrown wrote in post #17945749
Neacail,
Please post a link to your "bad" image on the NatGeo site. They don't have a search option, so we can't find it to help you analyze.

Here is the same JPEG I uploaded to NatGeo (it is a different edit from the first one in this thread):

I'm pleased with the way it renders here. This edit has more sharpening than I normally use. The JPEG is 1600 along the long edge.

Redcrown wrote in post #17945749
Neacail,

Please post a link to your "bad" image on the NatGeo site. They don't have a search option, so we can't find it to help you analyze.
-----
Traviswright,

That's an interesting claim, that PPI affects sharpening. Never heard that before and have doubts. Can you show proof? What sharpening tool do you think gives different results depending on the PPI of the image?
-----

I'm not very familiar with the NatGeo site, but a quick review shows that images are being resized. Either by their server or by your browser when displayed. On my 1920x1200 screen, individual images display (in Chrome) at 1000x750. But the slideshow appears to display images at the max screen size less a few pixels for the navigation arrows.

So it might be wise to upload at a size larger than the 1600 minimum if you want people with wide screens (4K?) to see a full screen image in slideshow.

Specifically it affects output sharpening in Lightroom. If you export from PS you have to do your own output sharpening.

I see very little differences between the latest images you posted here and the ones you did on their site. Mostly, on their site your photos have a very slightly cooler WB: negliglible for everyone but the one who made the image.

I wouldn't bother doctoring the images too much, unless the colours differ so much as in your first butterfly photo and the last one you posted here.