Image Degredation at Edges

tiaw

I wrote a thread about this a week or so ago, but wasn't able to get anywhere, mainly because no one could see what I was talking about.

Now, however, I have good examples.








And one more time up close

While it may not be too clear in the first image, the second and third one should demonstrate quite vividly what it is i'm seeing when I upload some of my photos to smugmug.

Around edges, there is almost like a sprinkling of extra pixels which are not present in the original image.

Oddly, this only happens with some images. For example: I could upload a photo which is 4000 x 3000 and the problem would occur. Then I could try the same image by reducing the size to 3800 x 2850 and it would be perfectly smooth.

Then, thinking I have figured the problem out, I could upload another photo at 3800 x 2850, and the problem would appear again, whereas if I kept the new image at 4000 x 3000, it would be fine.

The worst type of photos are portrait. Landscape photos can normally be smoothed out with some perserverence, but portrait remain problematic.

One final note: the problem appears to worsen and improve depending on what angle I look at the monitor from. I know this sounds odd, but can someone please give me some insight into what might be causing it? Could it even be the monitor settings?

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

I wrote a thread about this a week or so ago, but wasn't able to get anywhere, mainly because no one could see what I was talking about.

Now, however, I have good examples.

While it may not be too clear in the first image, the second one should demonstrate quite vividly what it is i'm seeing when I upload some of my photos to smugmug.

Around edges, there is almost like a sprinkling of extra pixels which are not present in the original image.

Oddly, this only happens with some images. For example: I could upload a photo which is 4000 x 3000 and the problem would occur. Then I could try the same image by reducing the size to 3800 x 2850 and it would be perfectly smooth.

Then, thinking I have figured the problem out, I could upload another photo at 3800 x 2850, and the problem would appear again, whereas if I kept the new image at 4000 x 3000, it would be fine.

The worst type of photos are portrait. Landscape photos can normally be smoothed out with some perserverence, but portrait remain problematic.

Please help!

What is your workflow for uploading to Smugmug from when the images come out of the camera until they get uploaded to Smugmug?

What are you using to edit your images? What are you using to upload them? What JPEG settings are you using when creating the images that you will upload (like compression level)? Are you resizing the images before upload? If so, please explain exactly how you're doing it (what software, what steps, what settings).

Your symptoms sounds to me like your images are either getting resized with improper technique or tools before upload or when creating the JPEGs too much JPEG compression is being used.

For reference, I use Adobe Lightroom for processing my images. I do not resize the images at all (I upload the exact pixel count that comes out of the camera - subject to any cropping I might do). When saving JPEGs from Lightroom, I use 85% compression level which is about the same as level 10 on the 1-12 scale.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

What is your workflow for uploading to Smugmug from when the images come out of the camera until they get uploaded to Smugmug?

What are you using to edit your images? What are you using to upload them? What JPEG settings are you using when creating the images that you will upload (like compression level)? Are you resizing the images before upload? If so, please explain exactly how you're doing it (what software, what steps, what settings).

Your symptoms sounds to me like your images are either getting resized with improper technique or tools before upload or when creating the JPEGs too much JPEG compression is being used.

For reference, I use Adobe Lightroom for processing my images. I do not resize the images at all (I upload the exact pixel count that comes out of the camera - subject to any cropping I might do). When saving JPEGs from Lightroom, I use 85% compression level which is about the same as level 10 on the 1-12 scale.

I used Adobe Photoshop. Sometimes I leave them as they are, sometimes I sharpen and resize. Despite this difference in procedure, the same thing happens (hard to believe I know, but true).

As for method of upload, I just use the main Java uploader on site.

I will give you an example of two different results though:

1) A 4000 x 3000 image which I sharpened, resized to 1700 x 1275, sharpened slightly again, and resized to 800 x 600. This turned out very clear and perfectly smooth. I used image quality 12.

2) A 4000 x 3000 image which I sharpened, resized to 1600 x 1200, sharpened slightly again, and resized to 800 x 600. This turned out similar to the image above, with degredation around the edges. I used image quality 12.

Conversely, I tried each of these methods in reverse with another image, and the results were the opposite.

Should be noted though, both were landscape photos. Portrait is much more of a problem.

To clarify, I have uploaded photos directly from my camera before, and the same happens as when I sharpen or resize or both.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

I used Adobe Photoshop. Sometimes I leave them as they are, sometimes I sharpen and resize. Despite this difference in procedure, the same thing happens (hard to believe I know, but true).

As for method of upload, I just use the main Java uploader on site.

I will give you an example of two different results though:

1) A 4000 x 3000 image which I sharpened, resized to 1700 x 1275, sharpened slightly again, and resized to 800 x 600. This turned out very clear and perfectly smooth. I used image quality 12.

2) A 4000 x 3000 image which I sharpened, resized to 1600 x 1200, sharpened slightly again, and resized to 800 x 600. This turned out similar to the image above, with degredation around the edges. I used image quality 12.

Conversely, I tried each of these methods in reverse with another image, and the results were the opposite.

Should be noted though, both were landscape photos. Portrait is much more of a problem.

To clarify, I have uploaded photos directly from my camera before, and the same happens as when I sharpen or resize or both.

There's something happening in your resize/sharpening/save to JPEG workflow that is messing with the images.

One thing you can do to isolate where the problem is occurring is this:

1) Examine the "original" size images on Smugmug. Smugmug does not touch your originals at all so if the issue shows in any original on Smugmug, then the problem has to be in your workflow before upload.

2) Examine an image that you about to upload in Photoshop. Just open the JPEG in Photoshop and see if you see the issue in Photoshop at 100% view.

3) Provide several links to images in a Smugmug gallery that have this issue where "originals" are enabled so we can look at the original ourselves.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

1) Examine the "original" size images on Smugmug. Smugmug does not touch your originals at all so if the issue shows in any original on Smugmug, then the problem has to be in your workflow before upload.

Yes. The problem is in some of the originals on smugmug.

jfriend wrote: »

2) Examine an image that you about to upload in Photoshop. Just open the JPEG in Photoshop and see if you see the issue in Photoshop at 100% view.

No. None of the images with these problems exhibit signs of the issue when viewed at 100% on Photoshop.

jfriend wrote: »

3) Provide several links to images in a Smugmug gallery that have this issue where "originals" are enabled so we can look at the original ourselves.

http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083235371_AZRoy

The first two images in this album are now uploaded in their original form. Although not quite as obvious as the example I originally provided, I do still see this problem in every size, apart from the "original", which for some reason Smugmug is not currently letting me view - so I can't tell.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

Yes. The problem is in some of the originals on smugmug.



No. None of the images with these problems exhibit signs of the issue when viewed at 100% on Photoshop.



http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083235371_AZRoy

The first two images in this album are now uploaded in their original form. Although not quite as obvious as the example I originally provided, I do still see this problem in every size, apart from the "original", which for some reason Smugmug is not currently letting me view - so I can't tell.

I don't see any issues in the "Urban Renewal next to Urban Decay" shot, in the original or in any of the other sizes. I now think that this might be a browser setting. Can you make sure that your browser zoom is set to 100% and has no zoom set.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

I don't see any issues in the "Urban Renewal next to Urban Decay" shot, in the original or in any of the other sizes. I now think that this might be a browser setting. Can you make sure that your browser zoom is set to 100% and has no zoom set.

Sorry to ask a stupid question, but how do I do that?

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

Sorry to ask a stupid question, but how do I do that?

What browser?

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

What browser?

Firefox 3.5.15

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

Firefox 3.5.15

View/Zoom/Reset

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

View/Zoom/Reset

Err.. ok. Really don't want to be a hassle here, but I still see the same problem.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

Err.. ok. Really don't want to be a hassle here, but I still see the same problem.

I can no longer get into your site (pwd is blocking me). I was going to post some screen shots of what I see in my browser and see if you're seeing the same thing.

PBolchover

Are you using any type of download accelerator?

Try downloading one of your degrade originals, and then re-upload it as a new image to Smugmug. Post the URLs of the two images here, so that people can compare the differences.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

I can no longer get into your site (pwd is blocking me). I was going to post some screen shots of what I see in my browser and see if you're seeing the same thing.

Sorry about that. Normally have it locked, as i'm still in the building process. Thought the thread was pretty much finished, so re-locked it again.

Unlocked it now though.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

Sorry about that. Normally have it locked, as i'm still in the building process. Thought the thread was pretty much finished, so re-locked it again.

Unlocked it now though.

Now originals are not enabled on this gallery: http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083235371_AZRoy.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

Now originals are not enabled on this gallery: http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083235371_AZRoy.

Yes, i've been trying all night to get trouble free images. Re-uploading the originals now.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

Now originals are not enabled on this gallery: http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083235371_AZRoy.

OK, have another good example.

Image 1: http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083458983_d6JrK-A-LB

Notice on areas where there is one colour, or on edges between contrasting colours, there is a slight "speckling" of pixels.

Image 2: http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083234070_Yrw5h-A-LB

Same photo, with a slightly different compression technique. This time very clear and smooth.

Open them up in different tabs, flick back and forth a few times and i'm sure you'll notice a subtle but important difference.

*Note, the "compression techniques" I refer to are interchangeable - i.e. each results in success sometimes and failure other times.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

OK, have another good example.

Image 1: http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083458983_d6JrK-A-LB

Notice on areas where there is one colour, or on edges between contrasting colours, there is a slight "speckling" or pixels.

Image 2: http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083234070_Yrw5h-A-LB

Same photo, with a slightly different compression technique. This time very clear and smooth.

Open them up in different tabs, flick back and forth a few times and i'm sure you'll notice a subtle but important difference.

*Note, the "compression techniques" I refer to are interchangeable - i.e. each results in success sometimes and failure other times.

I'm unable to view anything larger than 800px on the long side for either of those images. Either upload your full resolution images or enable originals so I can see what you uploaded.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

I'm unable to view anything larger than 800px on the long side for either of those images. Either upload your full resolution images or enable originals so I can see what you uploaded.

I uploaded them in 800px size deliberately, as this is the size I want my images to display as and no larger. But like I said before, the originals (as seen in http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083453231_k8Mb8-A-LB and http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083452180_Q4qzs-A-LB) turn up this problem anyway.

tiaw

These are originals, and how I see them once uploaded to Smugmug, with some problem areas highlighted:





I can't stress this enough: even if I upload them in their original form, without any editing, they still appear on my monitor to have pixelated edges. But again, it's hit and miss. Some images do, some images don't. One further thing that I have noticed though is that these same issues appear on flickr - but not in the originals on my computer. Finally, I have also noticed this happen sometimes with random images on other sites, including professional ones, and even that of other Smugmug users. So could it be a monitor issue? A browser issue? Because every person I ask sees no issue on their computers.


Now that I notice it, even a banner on the BBC site has this issue around the words "Blade" and "watch online" :


(Apologies for using a copyrighted image, I am just trying to demonstrate that this could be a much wider issue and am seeking guidance. I can delete once viewed).

A close up of what i'm talking about:



This is what I was talking about when I originally posted about my smugmug images.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

These are originals, and how I see them once uploaded to Smugmug, with some problem areas highlighted:





I can't stress this enough: even if I upload them in their original form, without any editing, they still appear on my monitor to have pixelated edges. But again, it's hit and miss. Some images do, some images don't. One further thing that I have noticed though is that these same issues appear on flickr - but not in the originals on my computer. Finally, I have also noticed this happen sometimes with random images on other sites, including professional ones, and even that of other Smugmug users. So could it be a monitor issue? A browser issue? Because every person I ask sees no issue on their computers.


Now that I notice it, even a banner on the BBC site has this issue around the words "Blade" and "watch online" :


(Apologies for using a copyrighted image, I am just trying to demonstrate that this could be a much wider issue and am seeking guidance. I can delete once viewed).

A close up of what i'm talking about:



This is what I was talking about when I originally posted about my smugmug images.

This is frustrating to me. I NEED to see the EXACT image that you upload to Smugmug. That means I need to be able to see the "Originals" in your gallery. That is the ONLY way that I can determine if this is happening before you upload to Smugmug or not. As it is, I cannot access originals in this gallery http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc. I can't help any further without that.

The super blown up "ch" image you show here exhibits JPEG artifacts from a lower JPEG compression level. If that is happening to your images - something I have not yet been able to see on your site as I don't see those issue in your display copies, then we need to determine where in your workflow it is happening - whether before you upload to Smugmug or on Smugmug in the creation of the display copies.

My next step is to examine your full resolution (never been resampled or scaled or resized ever in your workflow) originals on Smugmug. I can't help further until I can do that.

If it's any solace, what you think you see in your images is not seen by me here on a 30", high res, very expensive monitor. So, I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but it is not obvious to everyone.

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

This is frustrating to me. I NEED to see the EXACT image that you upload to Smugmug. That means I need to be able to see the "Originals" in your gallery. That is the ONLY way that I can determine if this is happening before you upload to Smugmug or not. As it is, I cannot access originals in this gallery http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc. I can't help any further without that.

The super blown up "ch" image you show here exhibits JPEG artifacts from a lower JPEG compression level. If that is happening to your images - something I have not yet been able to see on your site as I don't see those issue in your display copies, then we need to determine where in your workflow it is happening - whether before you upload to Smugmug or on Smugmug in the creation of the display copies.

My next step is to examine your full resolution (never been resampled or scaled or resized ever in your workflow) originals on Smugmug. I can't help further until I can do that.

If it's any solace, what you think you see in your images is not seen by me here on a 30", high res, very expensive monitor. So, I'm not saying there isn't an issue, but it is not obvious to everyone.

The unedited, straight from the camera photos are once again available in this album (the uncaptioned ones): http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083235879_mPMDj

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

The unedited, straight from the camera photos are once again available in this album (the uncaptioned ones): http://tiaw.smugmug.com/Hong-Kong/Kowloon/14572383_FX4Cc#1083235879_mPMDj

OK, when I look at the original either in my browser (off of Smugmug) or downloaded into Photoshop, I don't see significant JPEG artifacts along the top edge of the building. I do so signifcant CA (chromatic aberration) at the dark light boundary (it shows as purple edges in one direction and yellow edges in the other direction and it happens at a dark/light boundary - building/sky boundary), but that is typically caused by your lens and can be reduced in post processing. This is what I see when I take a 100% crop from your original:




I'm unable to see any JPEG artifacts on any other sizes of that image (XL, X2, X3). I do continue to see the CA from your lens.

For that particular image, straight from the camera on Smugmug, do you see the artifacts on any of the sizes? If so, can you describe what you're seeing?

I verified that this image is 3000x4000 pixels which is what your camera shoots at max resolution. I also verified that the file size is consistent with a quality JPEG compression level (2.5MB filesize).

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

OK, when I look at the original either in my browser (off of Smugmug) or downloaded into Photoshop, I don't see significant JPEG artifacts along the top edge of the building. I do so signifcant CA (chromatic aberration) at the dark light boundary (it shows as purple edges in one direction and yellow edges in the other direction and it happens at a dark/light boundary - building/sky boundary), but that is typically caused by your lens and can be reduced in post processing. This is what I see when I take a 100% crop from your original:




I'm unable to see any JPEG artifacts on any other sizes of that image (XL, X2, X3). I do continue to see the CA from your lens.

For that particular image, straight from the camera on Smugmug, do you see the artifacts on any of the sizes? If so, can you describe what you're seeing?

You're right, on the image you pasted above, there are none of the artifacts that i'm seeing on my own computer.

What I do see on my own computer around the edges is comparable to the 'ch' of the BBC banner I posted above. So obviously there is a discrepency between what I am seeing on my computer, and what you and everybody else is seeing on theirs.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

You're right, on the image you pasted above, there are none of the artifacts that i'm seeing on my own computer.

What I do see on my own computer around the edges is comparable to the 'ch' of the BBC banner I posted above. So obviously there is a discrepency between what I am seeing on my computer, and what you and everybody else is seeing on theirs.

You didn't answer my question. When this image is viewed via Smugmug on your monitor, do you see the artifacts in any of the viewable sizes?

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

You didn't answer my question. When this image is viewed via Smugmug on your monitor, do you see the artifacts in any of the viewable sizes?

I believe I did answer it, but maybe it wasn't clear.

Yes, there are artifacts on each of the viewable sizes.

jfriend

tiaw wrote: »

I believe I did answer it, but maybe it wasn't clear.

Yes, there are artifacts on each of the viewable sizes.

If you see the artifacts in the original too, then this has nothing to do with Smugmug. Smugmug isn't modifying your original. It's just passing it through to your browser which is then using your video system to display it.

I wonder if your display is somehow different. How many colors do you have? Mine is set for 32-bit color.

Beyond this, I don't think I can help much more because I don't see any artifacts on my display.

Allen

Is your ISP degrading the images? I think I remember AOL did that.

jfriend

Allen wrote: »

Is your ISP degrading the images? I think I remember AOL did that.

Good thought Allen, do you have any "web accelerator" software installed on your computer or via your ISP? What is your ISP?

tiaw

jfriend wrote: »

Good thought Allen, do you have any "web accelerator" software installed on your computer or via your ISP? What is your ISP?

I don't believe I have any web accelerator software, but how would I check?

The ISP explanation would make sense. If it's not happening on your computer, or on the computers of friends i'm showing it to, and if it's also happening to images on the internet that aren't even mine - and to images both on flickr and smugmug that are mine, then something doesn't add up.

Does anyone know how I could check this?

Andy

tiaw wrote: »

I don't believe I have any web accelerator software, but how would I check?

The ISP explanation would make sense. If it's not happening on your computer, or on the computers of friends i'm showing it to, and if it's also happening to images on the internet that aren't even mine - and to images both on flickr and smugmug that are mine, then something doesn't add up.

Does anyone know how I could check this?

We have some info here http://www.smugmug.com/help/display-quality click the 'got jaggies' link.