Crazy report of image size

john crossley wrote in post #18852814
Blimey you must have bloody good eyesight. 14mm is just over ½ inch in real money.

Ooh, ooh, I betcha he meant cm.

So how am I to follow the advice about always sharpening at 100%? Whose 100% should I aim for?

OhLook wrote in post #18852846
Ooh, ooh, I betcha he meant cm.

So how am I to follow the advice about always sharpening at 100%?

I would just upload something like 5Mb image and trust our uploader to resize and sharpen it, default settings work fine. I've basically done the hard work to get good USM and packing size for web when coding that feature.

OhLook wrote in post #18852846
Whose 100% should I aim for?

On web and mobile there is no "correct size" as viewer devices vary, browser window sizes vary, browser rendering methods vary, zoom amount can vary, DPI may vary, quality of displays vary etc. That is why a 100% size view (on a 100% browser zoom) is the only way to evaluate image quality here, personally. What other's will see is uncontrollable.

Here's one test image (not mine, you can get if from https://www.drycreekph​oto.com/tools/) that I have used (as sRGB) on the testing phase, it is uploaded with default settings (1600 downsize with default sharpening):

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

OhLook wrote in post #18852846
So how am I to follow the advice about always sharpening at 100%? Whose 100% should I aim for?

You view the image at 100% in your editing software.

Pekka wrote in post #18852853
On web and mobile there is no "correct size" . . . . What other's will see is uncontrollable.

I appreciate your taking the trouble to provide this information, which, unfortunately, makes me want to say some words that my husband learned in the Navy.

john crossley wrote in post #18852871
You view the image at 100% in your editing software.

That's what I did with the moth. Viewed at 100% on POTN, it was smaller and softer than viewed at 100% on my Desktop–on the same computer! It seems that even what I see is uncontrollable.

john crossley wrote in post #18852814
Blimey you must have bloody good eyesight. 14mm is just over ½ inch in real money.

Fixed. Thanks.

Pekka wrote in post #18852853
I would just upload something like 5Mb image and trust our uploader to resize and sharpen it, default settings work fine. I've basically done the hard work to get good USM and packing size for web when coding that feature.

As you see, a 100% view shows it is very sharp and without USM artifacts or moire. When resized to content size by browser it is softer (which can not be avoided).

Thanks to Pekka's outstanding development that works here. (Just for fun I uploaded and embedded a big Scott Martin test file and carefully checked it before removing. It looked great even after a major size reduction and then even after a large downsize of the Chrome browser window. I had to remove because I don't own the image. It's available at http://www.on-sight.com …Onsight_Evaluat​ion_v2.zip)

For the inferior sites around that just resize without spending cycles on unsharp masking I think we still want to choose the display size or most likely range, resize the image, and then take another look at sharpening and contrast.

Thanks, Pekka. Except, of course, for the problem of you spoiling us rotten.