Does reducing a jpg soften it?

I don't see a difference, either, but I also have a 15" screen.

For another comparison, the same reduced by 75% in Preview:

To my eyes and on a 5K iMac screen, the AMASS reduced version looks slightly sharper and more detailed. Nevertheless I think it's time I started using the CS5 Photoshop I've had on my computer for years and been too over-awed to try.

I didn't realise you did all (or nearly) your edits in Preview. I actually do the raw conversion and global adjustments with Photo Ninja and just use Preview to resize because PN doesn't give you the option of specifying pixel dimensions when converting to jpeg. PN is a good program otherwise though and I can use it as a Photoshop plugin, so I will. I understand doing a final sharpen at output size, which you can do with Photoshop, makes a big difference.

Do you have Photoshop Elements? In File > Save for Web, you can see before and after resizing. Mostly I use this program for to resize for internet, but Canon's DPP can resize too: in File > Convert and save you can resize very well, although you can't see how big (MB's) the photo will be.

OhLook, I took your two 1280px versions to Photoshop and blew them up to have a better look. The AMASS version clearly has the edge. But the Preview version after some sharpening is right up there. Here is the comparison. Blown up to 500%. Left the Preview version, in the middle the AMASS version, right the Preview version after some sharpening.

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

Like many have said never let a website resize your images. Upload to the size you want to display. Learn about the 3 phases of sharpening.

https://www.cambridgei​ncolour.com …ials/image-sharpening.htm

Do capture and creative sharpening at 100%. Do your final or export sharpening after resizing to the size you plan to upload.

The resampling algorithms have improved a lot over the years but there are different ones. I don't know what preview uses.

You don't own PS but this may help explain some things. In the resizing video it talks a lot about upsizing and for print but some good info. Other software works the similar way.

https://www.youtube.co​m …4mV3NsLmXw&feat​ure=relmfu

https://www.youtube.co​m …ure=player_embe​dded#at=20

I really like pushing crops to the max and resizing. Being careful and following a few key steps makes a big difference. Second image is a crop.

PPI has no effect on screen viewing. 1st image is set to 1. Next image 1000

Have you tried using Canon's DPP? I found the resizing algorithms have improved over the years. I think the sharpening on the basic image adjustment window defaults to 3 which is pretty good. Try 4 and it starts to get aggressive at 5. The File - Convert and Save command offers pixel dimensions.

digital paradise wrote in post #18527185
PPI has no effect on screen viewing. 1st image is set to 1. Next image 1000

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=185​27185&i=i253720085
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=185​27185&i=i122056249
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Good thing the first one doesn't automatically print for you when you look at the post.

That's a lot of paper and ink.

digital paradise wrote in post #18527181

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=185​27181&i=i115440898
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Hosted photo: posted by digital paradise in
./showthread.php?p=185​27181&i=i63303048
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

Interesting that the crop looks sharper & with more detail than the original image.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18527221
Interesting that the crop looks sharper & with more detail than the original image.

No PP with the original.

PhotosGuy wrote in post #18527221
Interesting that the crop looks sharper & with more detail than the original image.

That's pretty common when the downsampling method does not include a lot of sharpening. A downsample can be all over the map, sharpness-wise, with the same original image. Upsampled images, too, can have ramped or splined transients between original pixels, or just duplicate them and maintain pixel contrast.

Some comments on this:

- always store original (RAW) locally in at least three storage mediums! That is your (pre-)negative, your most valuable possession.

- To make life easy, trust AMASS to resize your uploaded photos, just make sure you upload something like 3-5MB size (2500x2500 or so). If you upload in 1280 size, it won't be sharpened or resized here, but it is re-saved (JPEG compression artifacts accumulate). Uploaded originals won't be stored on the server after resize is done. Don't worry about server stress, just do it.

- Next version of the forums will have a 1600x1600 upload choice, and sharpening (USM) strength selection (easy to change for each upload). You can also choose to apply sharpening on downsize only, or also to sizes that already fit to rules. JPEG compression quality will be improved in AMASS 2.0, too.

John Sheehy wrote in post #18527342
That's pretty common when the downsampling method does not include a lot of sharpening. A downsample can be all over the map, sharpness-wise, with the same original image. Upsampled images, too, can have ramped or splined transients between original pixels, or just duplicate them and maintain pixel contrast.

True and the algorithms have really improved over the last 10 years.