JPG Artifacts...

Mike Lane

Is it just me or has anyone else noticed that all of the sudden lots of the pictures you look at on SM have a ton of ugly jpg artifacts??? I thought it may be just my site but as I was flipping around the smugblog I came across a link to Adamus website (uh...wow by the way). Take a look at this:

http://wildphoto.smugmug.com/photos/popup.mg?ImageID=21184746&Size=Large

(Not my picture so I didn't want to post the actual shot on here)

Look at all the awful artifacts around the top of the mountain and the trees on the left. YIKES!

Here's one from my gallery. The artifacts are horrible.



The corresponding image on my machine does not have these artifacts.

Hey SM guys, what'd you do? Can you undo it?

digismile

Mike,

your original photo that you uploaded appears to be only 300 x 450 pixels. Is this the size you normally upload? I was wondering if the artifacts are because the large size has to be upscaled by smugmug to 533 x 800. I haven't noticed anything myself, but I think this same complaint came up recently. I don't recall the replies.

Maybe try uploading a larger original.

Brad

P.S. Nice looking shot!

Mike Lane

digismile wrote:

Mike,

your original photo that you uploaded appears to be only 300 x 450 pixels. Is this the size you normally upload? I was wondering if the artifacts are because the large size has to be upscaled by smugmug to 533 x 800. I haven't noticed anything myself, but I think this same complaint came up recently. I don't recall the replies.

Maybe try uploading a larger original.

Brad

P.S. Nice looking shot!

Okay, that may be the issue.

That begs the question: how in the world did the O get so small??? I uploaded a full sized image, and at one point I recall this very image being much larger. So did all of my images get downsized? Is the downsized image the one going to print if someone orders a shot? I just uploaded another image fresh from my computer that has had nothing done to it since I uploaded it originally. The original uploaded file on smugmug is small, the one I just uploaded (same pic, same upload method) is massive.

Now I'm even more concerned. I may have to take the ability to purchase my images down until I can confirm that users are going to get quality prints from my images.

Incidentally, for reference, I just checked the image from Adamus's site that I posted earlier. His original photo is smaller than the large size as well.

I need to take this to the official help I think.

Mike

didymus

Hmm, not sure if this is related but I just noticed some strange artifacting as well. Compare this image:
http://didymus.smugmug.com/photos/26139187-L.jpg

Which was uploaded at full res and downsized by smugmug, to this:

http://didymus.smugmug.com/photos/26143297-L.jpg

Which was resized to 800 pixels in irfanview.
Note the artifacts around the legs and between the head and leg. Is this normal for smugmug to add these artifacts?

Mike Lane

didymus wrote:

Hmm, not sure if this is related but I just noticed some strange artifacting as well. Compare this image:
http://didymus.smugmug.com/photos/26139187-L.jpg

Which was uploaded at full res and downsized by smugmug, to this:

Are you aware that http://didymus.smugmug.com/photos/26139187-O.jpg is only 600px by 400px (smaller than the large version). Is this as surprising to you as it is to me?

didymus

I'm not sure what that means, unless the O means original.. and for some reason it resizes the original for that link, because the uploaded file is definitely not that small. See here: http://didymus.smugmug.com/gallery/609188/1/26139187
Says of that image:
Original size: 3180x2120

Mongrel

Well, for what it's worth....
I seem to have a similar experience. I have no clue about the mechanics involved in all of it so I'll just toss in my two bones and go.

I always upload 'full size' images to my galleries (except for some down-sized challenge shots and what-not) and they never look as good when viewed on my smugmug galleries as they do on my monitor at home.

Now, I don't know why and I don't have the knowledge to even begin to figure it out-but I've noticed it.

I always thought it was because I'm doing something wrong when I save them in Paint Shop Pro .

I'll bow out now, and just follow what's said here.

didymus

Crappy looing file: 27.25KB, my resized file (same dimensions) - 211KB!
Sounds like they are compressing heavily even after resizing.. thats pretty crappy if you ask me.

So to avoid the crappy compression I would have to manually resize every image instead of being able to store my originals.. sigh.

didymus

http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-quality

According to that:
The people you share with want crisp and clean photos with no artifacts but they also want the site to be blazing fast, and the two work against each other. Hard, contrasty edges, red colors, small objects, and large spaces with very gradually changing colors such as you see on the side of a car are the toughest to keep artifact-free. The easiest are textured surfaces like fields of grass, carpets, etc.

We've tried to err on the image quality side, which means images don't download quite as fast on smugmug as they do on other photo sharing sites. It was not practical to eliminate all artifacts from tough images, however, like this red Ferrari. Doing so would cause the image size to double or triple.

If it was critical for you to share a perfectly clean image at the expense of download time, you could upload an image no larger than 800x800 pixels, and when your admirers saw your large image, it would be exactly as you uploaded it.


If you ask me that is pretty aggressive compression, not erring on the image quality side..

onethumb

Wow, slow down everyone.

You have Originals turned off on that gallery. Thus, it's serving up a smaller version instead of the Original, because you requested it that way.

Your Originals are intact, full-resolution, and your prints will look great.

I think Baldy's gonna weigh in on the compression, but our compression is the least agressive of any of our competitors. Compression is a fact of life on the net, and we've tried to balance it as best we can.

Don

Baldy

didymus wrote:

Crappy looing file: 27.25KB, my resized file (same dimensions) - 211KB!
Sounds like they are compressing heavily even after resizing.. thats pretty crappy if you ask me.

So to avoid the crappy compression I would have to manually resize every image instead of being able to store my originals.. sigh.

Unfortunately for you and for us, the vast majority of your admirers will complain about the 211 KB version, not the 28 KB version.

That's because for about 999 of 1,000 people, speed rules the day. It will take a modem user 78 seconds to view your photo and 100% of them will probably use a stronger word than crappy.

Our images are about 20% larger than PBase images, for which we are being punished on the forums by the 999 and praised by the 1. Imagine if we let the image size go up by a factor of ten.

The other day I chased a post on a forum down that said, "smugmug is the slowest site I have ever seen on the Internet." It turns out she was browsing someone's site who posted 800-pixel originals that had little compression. I explained that the photographer wanted to avoid all compression artifacts and saved them that way. She said we should read a book on website usability.

The reason your photo is so small — 27 KB for our version and 211 KB for yours — is that it has broad areas of low detail. If it were grass, you could double or triple that. 200 seconds for modem users. One image.

I wish we had a better answer for you, but we're punished enough for fatty images as it is.

All the best,
Baldy

didymus

Understandable I guess, just came as a surprise. And if I want to be overly anal I could resize or allow originals I suppose..
Its a good point that most viewers care more about load time than quality, and after watching my grandmother trying to browse the site on dialup the other day... well, enough said lol.
If you could make it an option that would make things easier

Mike Lane

onethumb wrote:

Wow, slow down everyone.

You have Originals turned off on that gallery. Thus, it's serving up a smaller version instead of the Original, because you requested it that way.

Your Originals are intact, full-resolution, and your prints will look great.

I think Baldy's gonna weigh in on the compression, but our compression is the least agressive of any of our competitors. Compression is a fact of life on the net, and we've tried to balance it as best we can.

Don

phew!

Now, am I just being picky about all the ugly jpg artifacts in the golden gate bridge image I posted earlier? I really don't think I am, and frankly I think any customer who has eyes will see it and automatically think that I have low quality pictures (the fact that my pictures are not great or you know...all that good...doesn't mean that they are low quality. Only the best resolution for my mediocre pictures I tell you!).

I'm thinking it's coming down to how the SM guys would like to be perceived vs. how the photographers would like to be perceived. To be perfectly honest, I would rather have high quality, slower loading pictures (frankly, I don't give a damn about pbase). I'd even do up my own little disclaimer to let everyone know that yes, these pictures are high quality, and high quality pictures = lots of download time so be patient.

I do get that SM is in quite a bind here but I think they have taken in the direction of speed one or two notches too far. That's all I'm saying.

marlinspike

Well...if it matters...smugmug, I still love you guys

Personally, I think what smugmug does it smart, and this from an idiot who only uploads JPEGS at compression 12, until he started scanning film and had to to 10 to get them under 8mb...and then realized there is no friggin difference, not at 100%, not at 150%, not at 1600%. As far as the artifacting, they aren't using very heavy compression, I think it's like 5 or 6 in PS terms. The reason the files are SOOOOO much smaller is they basically use the save for web feature in PS. They strip all the non-imagine-only data, which frees up a lot of space.

If people look at a small file and see artifacting (which only the person who uploaded the original will, because nobody else looks that close), they should know enough to know that the original won't have it. Go view some pbase pages and see how you like 1024x768's taking forever to load even on 1.5mbps download speed DSL, then make a decision about how you feel in regards to smugmug compression.
Richard

PS - I feel like a misunderstanding could lead somewhere I don't want to go, so to be perfectly clear, in the 2nd line of text I'm calling MYSELF an idiot.

Andy

Mike Lane wrote:

phew!

Now, am I just being picky about all the ugly jpg artifacts in the golden gate bridge image I posted earlier? I really don't think I am, and frankly I think any customer who has eyes will see it and automatically think that I have low quality pictures (the fact that my pictures are not great or you know...all that good...doesn't mean that they are low quality. Only the best resolution for my mediocre pictures I tell you!).

I'm thinking it's coming down to how the SM guys would like to be perceived vs. how the photographers would like to be perceived. To be perfectly honest, I would rather have high quality, slower loading pictures (frankly, I don't give a damn about pbase). I'd even do up my own little disclaimer to let everyone know that yes, these pictures are high quality, and high quality pictures = lots of download time so be patient.

I do get that SM is in quite a bind here but I think they have taken in the direction of speed one or two notches too far. That's all I'm saying.

smugmug many thousands of customers and order of magnitude higher than that of viewers - speed is critical.

you can:

create 800px max images on your system, upload them, and show them as -O originals, and nothing will be changed - how's that?

jh4wvu

You could add a disclaimer stating that the images have been compressed or whatever in order to make them load faster on the web and that the prints ordered will be done from the original file therefore looking better than what is seen on the web.

I tell people that all the time that try to download the oinline version and try to get them printed themselves and complain that they look crappy. I tell them that they need to order through us and they will get better prints. People try all kinds of ways to save a buck. I have people do a screen capture, crop out the photo, and take it to Wal-Mart to print.

Mike Lane

andy wrote:

smugmug many thousands of customers and order of magnitude higher than that of viewers - speed is critical.

you can:

create 800px max images on your system, upload them, and show them as -O originals, and nothing will be changed - how's that?

So then the prints will come from the 800 px originals? Maybe if they implement the email notification of a sale feature that is in other threads. Then once a sale is made I can simply upload the full sized image. No fuss no artifacts.

Mike Lane

jh4wvu wrote:

You could add a disclaimer stating that the images have been compressed or whatever in order to make them load faster on the web and that the prints ordered will be done from the original file therefore looking better than what is seen on the web.

I tell people that all the time that try to download the oinline version and try to get them printed themselves and complain that they look crappy. I tell them that they need to order through us and they will get better prints. People try all kinds of ways to save a buck. I have people do a screen capture, crop out the photo, and take it to Wal-Mart to print.

Oh for crying out loud! That's another reason to have better watermarking (a whole other topic).

This disclaimer will probably be the direction that I go assuming things aren't going to change around here.

Baldy

If you do decide to compress less and upload 800 px images, you probably know this already but you can only really notice artifacts on images with high-contrast transitions that have nearly solid colors beside the the transition.

In fields of grass, for example, you won't be able to see artifacts and since those kinds of images don't compress well, they'll really get huge and we'll be answering smugmug sucks email.

It's possible there are exceptions to this, but in my experience with the current compression settings the only ones who notice or are bothered by the artifacts are the gallery owners. They're the ones really poring over every part of their image for flaws. Your admirers notice the light, composition, colors, and much as anything, the speed.

bham

Baldy, I think you are totally right that only photographers or overly picky customers would look that close and hard to find artifacts. I must not have looked close enough because I didn't see anything. I believe this is a case where you have put time and thought into the quality vs speed isue and made a reasonable balance. Keep up the good work.

Jim

I don't think that I'm being particularly picky but I don't understand why my images look so bad on the large setting.

The way I have my original images sized, the large setting on Smugmug is about the size of the actual image. If I compare the image (as displayed on Smugmug) using original size vs. the image using large size, the images display at the same size but the original one looks significantly better (and I mean a lot better).

Is there that much compression on the large size or am I doing something wrong?

Andy

Jim wrote:

I don't think that I'm being particularly picky but I don't understand why my images look so bad on the large setting.

The way I have my original images sized, the large setting on Smugmug is about the size of the actual image. If I compare the image (as displayed on Smugmug) using original size vs. the image using large size, the images display at the same size but the original one looks significantly better (and I mean a lot better).

Is there that much compression on the large size or am I doing something wrong?

hi jim,

if you are uploading downsized files, why not just make them 800px max on the longest side, and allow originals to be viewed?

Jim

andy wrote:

hi jim,

if you are uploading downsized files, why not just make them 800px max on the longest side, and allow originals to be viewed?

Thanks for replying Andy. Oddly enough the originals happen to be 808 x 648. I just happened to resize them to that size with a frame.

I'm happy to allow originals to be viewed, but every time you look at the original it pops up in a separate window that isn't properly sized so I find that approach a hassle as you then have to resize the window to see the whole image and then close the window and then repeat to see the next image. The originals when viewed this way do look significantly better than the large, but I'd much rather that people just be able to click along and view the large as it's presented in a better format (IMO).

Is there any way to get the large to look like the original?

Thanks again.

Andy

Jim wrote:

Is there any way to get the large to look like the original?

Thanks again.

why not just make your pics 800px wide - then allow origs - doing this, you'll have total control over the look.

fwiw, i viewed your site and it looks good on mac 23in display, sony18in display, and sony laptop.

wish i had better answer for you

Jim

andy wrote:

why not just make your pics 800px wide - then allow origs - doing this, you'll have total control over the look.

fwiw, i viewed your site and it looks good on mac 23in display, sony18in display, and sony laptop.

wish i had better answer for you

Thanks for the nice compliment Andy and I appreciate your opinion.

So you are saying that if I make the originals that I upload exactly 800 pixels wide, then the large size will display with the same quality as the original on Smugmug?

I'll try it out, but I'm not sure that it will because I think Smugmug will try to compress the large size anyway? What is frustrating is that my file size for these original files is only around 100 to 150 k anyway. Remember that I'm already perfectly happy with the quality that Smugmug is displaying when you select "original size" - I just don't like the separate window. Is there any way to avoid the separate window for original quality?

I just can't believe that the Smugmug compression for large can make that much of a difference.

Jim

Jim wrote:

So you are saying that if I make the originals that I upload exactly 800 pixels wide, then the large size will display with the same quality as the original on Smugmug?

.....

I just can't believe that the Smugmug compression for large can make that much of a difference.

Wow.

Well I tried it and in my opinion it makes a huge difference. It's hard to believe that viewing an image using "large" which I have downsized myself from 806 to 800 px before uploading, looks so much better than a large downsized by Smugmug from 806 to 800 pixels. Same image by the way, other than the different sizes.