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

Nogo wrote in post #18763295
The image looks about the same as yours using my Firefox browser. Is it possible to load the image to this forum's server so we can eliminate the problem being due to your server? The reason I say that, if the problem was strictly a browser problem, I would think the browser should also make the screen shot dull like the image on your server. On my end it (the first screen shot) is not.

As I say I see the same issue with the pre-upload local copy so the server is already eliminated.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18763284
the issue seems to browser vs photoshop rather than anything to do with the server space.

I suspect you're right about PS vs. browser.
I did notice, by copy and paste, your image into PS as a new document:

1. Using PS's Zoom to 200% gives very jaggy results, as in your screen shot above, compared to the browser, Fire Fox in my case.
2. Using PS's Image Size function, resizing to 200% using Bicubic Smoother, gives results almost identical to the browser view at 200%.

Just an observation that doesn't explain what you are seeing. I've never really noticed your issue myself, but I haven't ever looked that close after the
final edit and upload.

-Douglas- wrote in post #18763459
I suspect you're right about PS vs. browser.
I did notice, by copy and paste, your image into PS as a new document:

1. Using PS's Zoom to 200% gives very jaggy results, as in your screen shot above, compared to the browser, Fire Fox in my case.
2. Using PS's Image Size function, resizing to 200% using Bicubic Smoother, gives results almost identical to the browser view at 200%.

Just an observation that doesn't explain what you are seeing. I've never really noticed your issue myself, but I haven't ever looked that close after the
final edit and upload.

It only seems to be obvious on hard cropped wildlife shots, where one always needs more reach.

It is an odd thing.

Couple more examples below:


100%
Browser, MS Office 2010, Photo, Photoshop

200%
Browser, MS Office 2010
Photoshop

Also Paint gave similar results to Photoshop, the others look similar to the browser to me.

All my images are softer on POTN (via Firefox, haven't tried other browsers) than before I upload them. I don't use PS.

www.ware.myzen.co.uk/G​alleryPics/Ph...

www.zen20934.zen.co.uk

whenever I have seen these issues it boiled down to how the images were handled by the web server. Given that I have seen it a number of times and seeing the non matching TLD and odd subdomains on your server, I still come back to that same question of how the server is handling the images on upload.

are you creating the thumbnails on your main photography page as well as all of the other images on the site and uploading them via FTP? or do you log into the server via your web browser and upload from there? And again, do you create the thumbnails at your desk or does the gallery software do that?

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18764363
www.ware.myzen.co.uk/G​alleryPics/Ph...

www.zen20934.zen.co.uk

whenever I have seen these issues it boiled down to how the images were handled by the web server. Given that I have seen it a number of times and seeing the non matching TLD and odd subdomains on your server, I still come back to that same question of how the server is handling the images on upload.

are you creating the thumbnails on your main photography page as well as all of the other images on the site and uploading them via FTP? or do you log into the server via your web browser and upload from there? And again, do you create the thumbnails at your desk or does the gallery software do that?

see post #16

FWIW Lester, looking at your uploaded file in chrome at 200% also looked the same sort of blurry, perhaps the answer is ...... drum roll....... don't look at 200%, it'll only cause you to be disappointed !

hmm, well i wonder what version of IE that is he's using? I am rarely on a windows machine but that looks like an old logo in the OP.

sidknee wrote in post #18764374
FWIW Lester, looking at your uploaded file in chrome at 200% also looked the same sort of blurry, perhaps the answer is ...... drum roll....... don't look at 200%, it'll only cause you to be disappointed !

Yes for sure the PS up-sampling may well be expected to look better than the browser (I would say true for most of the Windows Apps other than paint) so I agree, this is not something I would normally do, just trying to make it easier for my tired old eyes.

However I think the issue is visible at 100% (normal viewing for a web image).

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18764375
hmm, well i wonder what version of IE that is he's using? I am rarely on a windows machine but that looks like an old logo in the OP.

I( don't think this is an isolated issue, but for what it is worth:
IE 11.407.17134.0 UDVers 11.0.95
Edge 42.17134.1.0

It would be interesting to hear how other browser perform (thanks to Oh Look for her input in post #20), an indication of other OSs would be interesting also, I have not installed other browsers on this particular machine, I'll check to see if Safari has been ported to Windows.

I think it seems likely that most peoples browsers are slightly softer than PS.

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?

And another example in the same order.

Lester Wareham wrote in post #18764798
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?

Hosted photo: posted by Lester Wareham in
./showthread.php?p=187​64798&i=i57334943
forum: RAW, Post Processing & Printing

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

Second one looks better for the bird but only marginally and it's hard to gauge any difference for the dog. To my eyes at any rate.

sidknee wrote in post #18764806
Second one looks better for the bird but only marginally and it's hard to gauge any difference for the dog. To my eyes at any rate.

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.