Is SmugMug using jpg quality nine?

dennismullen

I took my original picture and resized it in PS to the XL2 size. By sliding the quality slider and comparing the file size it appears Smugmug is using a quality of nine when it resizes jpgs. Is this true? I ask because the rule of thumb about jpg resizing is to use at least jpg ten. I am concerned because most people would not view my originals, and I would not recompress them this much if I resized them myself.

Andy

http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2007/10/15/smugmungous-october-15th-2007/

Since almost a year now we've raised the quality of our display-copies, and it's not "9" that you're familiar with in Photoshop.

dennismullen

Andy wrote:

http://blogs.smugmug.com/release-notes/2007/10/15/smugmungous-october-15th-2007/

Since almost a year now we've raised the quality of our display-copies, and it's not "9" that you're familiar with in Photoshop.

Thanks Andy,

But you neglected to state the compression rate. The file size suggests it isn't "10" as shown in photoshop. When people ask what is the best compression rate to upload, you always suggest "10". Am I missing something?

Cameron

dennismullen wrote:

Thanks Andy,

But you neglected to state the compression rate. The file size suggests it isn't "10" as shown in photoshop. When people ask what is the best compression rate to upload, you always suggest "10". Am I missing something?

The reason that 10 is suggested is not primarily for the web display purposes. If you're printing large prints from your originals you want to minimize the chance that any JPEG compression artifacts will be seen in the prints.

At JPEG compression of 10, you'll be virtually unable to visually differentiate between the original image and the uploaded version.

dennismullen

CSwinton wrote:

The reason that 10 is suggested is not primarily for the web display purposes. If you're printing large prints from your originals you want to minimize the chance that any JPEG compression artifacts will be seen in the prints.

At JPEG compression of 10, you'll be virtually unable to visually differentiate between the original image and the uploaded version.

Why wouldn't the same quality standards be just as important for the resized pictures which are what will most often be viewed? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd like to know what quality setting the resized pictures are compressed at. I know if I was doing them myself I'd use at least "10".

Andy

dennismullen wrote:

Why wouldn't the same quality standards be just as important for the resized pictures which are what will most often be viewed? Maybe I'm mistaken, but I'd like to know what quality setting the resized pictures are compressed at. I know if I was doing them myself I'd use at least "10".

The scales we use aren't the same as photoshop's scales. But they are akin to higher than "10"

dennismullen

Andy wrote:

The scales we use aren't the same as photoshop's scales. But they are akin to higher than "10"

One has only to resize and save the original file at "10" in PS and compare the file sizes to see this is not the case. Pixel peeping further shows the difference.

rynoshark

Crank it up to eleven
I think these links may help clarify the confusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akaD9v460yI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven

dennismullen

rynoshark wrote:

I think these links may help clarify the confusion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=akaD9v460yI

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Up_to_eleven

I have noticed the correlation between jpg quality levels and the volume knobs on Spinal Tap's guitar amps


I have this dilemma were I used to upload an original size of 1248x702 which worked well for posting in forums. Now I upload large originals to SmugMug and use the XL size for this purpose. It's a good size, but the compression loss is very noticeable compared to the original high quality files I used to use. The part that puzzles me is I can upload unlimited amounts, but I have to use these lower quality pictures for my smaller sizes. I would be happy to upload my own smaller sizes but there is no way to organize them.