Defaulting to a display copy in the lightbox

Jtring

Rather than post this directly at the Feature Request Page, I thought I’d toss this out here for discussion.

In the last week or so I’ve been reediting some older JPEGs which came out of the camera over-sharpened. (I’ve recently learned a bit more about how to correct that, if only partially, without too much collateral damage.) That means I’ve been staring very closely on how sharp (or not) the photos are when put up on SmugMug.

In Chrome (Version 47 under Windows 7 on a 1920 x 1200 monitor), I observe fill images in the lightbox can be a bit softer than the X2’s or X3’s. In Firefox (Version 43) all seem pretty much equally sharp. I’ve not checked other browsers. I’ve noted here in the past, in a rather different context, that browser image down-scaling can have some unexpected effects on sharpness. This is not a SmugMug issue directly, but it is indirectly since SmugMug relies on browser image re-scaling.

I’m coming to conclusion that while letting the lightbox fill the page with an image provides great “presence”, which is why the new SM went that direction, it’s not always the right choice for showing an image to best effect. Image quality counts too. “Best effect” may come from just looking at the next-size-down display copy, an X2, XL, or whatever. I now do that when looking at my SmugMug images (and those of others) in Chrome.

I’d like to suggest a gallery setting where one could select whether the default lightbox image size is a “display copy” or a “fill”. If the former is selected, the image in the lightbox would default to the largest display copy that would fit without scrollbars. If the latter, behavior would be as it is today. The usual sizes button could remain to let the user select “fill” if desired or a different display copy.

Has anyone else stared at sharpening enough to see what I think I’m seeing and thing this sort of thing might be desirable?

leftquark

I haven't noticed my photos losing sharpness when auto-scaled in Chrome, but I'll have a discussion with the team tomorrow to see if they have any insight.

Jtring

leftquark wrote: »

I haven't noticed my photos losing sharpness when auto-scaled in Chrome, but I'll have a discussion with the team tomorrow to see if they have any insight.

It probably depends on gazillions of things: specific image sizes, overall detail level and feature size within the image, local sharpness/contrast levels, monitor pitch size, and who knows what else. That's why I posted it here: to get a sanity check on whether this is general issue or one very specific to my set up and photographic style.

Here are two images where I think the X2 in Chrome is sharper than the fill when I run Chrome in normal (not full screen) mode: https://jtringl.smugmug.com/Browser/Sierra-Nevada/Whitney/i-kgLTKv2/A (look at the sign) and https://jtringl.smugmug.com/Browser/Sierra-Nevada/Whitney/i-nkm3vZH/A (look at the log and the whole scene). On my system, the Chrome fill images are X3's down-scaled to 1516 x 1137. On the first image, the fill image looks a little soft and the X2 and X3 look crisp. On the second, the fill image looks OK while the X2 and X3 look a bit crunchy to me. Then go over to Firefox. Everything seems more uniform to my eye on my system. For that matter, the down-scaled L's in the collage landscape display all seem sharper on Firefox compared to Chrome too for the gallery in question.

I'll admit I'm surprised Firefox seems to be looking sharper than Chrome. The two browsers have reputations that would suggest exactly the opposite.

leftquark

Any chance you can send me some URL's and some screenshots so our experts can take a look and see if there's anything we can do on our end?

Jtring

leftquark wrote: »

Any chance you can send me some URL's and some screenshots so our experts can take a look and see if there's anything we can do on our end?

Coming via PM.

leftquark

Got your email. I'll dig into it with the team tomorrow morning when we can analyze in depth.

leftquark

I've taken a look at the images and it does look like FF is showing sharper images than Chrome. I'll pass along to the team and see what we can find out / determine.

Ukfalc

I am new to SM and in the process of setting up my website.

I assume this issue was never fixed(?) as I have the same problem. My images look sharp in every size, except the default "fill" size that isused by light box. Most look fine when scales to fit the screen but about 20-30% of them look nowhere near being sharp and are absolutely awful.

The only way that I have found around it, is to set my maximum image display size to large, which has the images looking sharp but sadly does not use the full screen. It s so frustrating not being able to display images full screen whilst retaining their sharpness...

leftquark

Ukfalc wrote: »

I am new to SM and in the process of setting up my website.

I assume this issue was never fixed(?) as I have the same problem. My images look sharp in every size, except the default "fill" size that isused by light box. Most look fine when scales to fit the screen but about 20-30% of them look nowhere near being sharp and are absolutely awful.

The only way that I have found around it, is to set my maximum image display size to large, which has the images looking sharp but sadly does not use the full screen. It s so frustrating not being able to display images full screen whilst retaining their sharpness...

Are you using a MacBook Pro with a Retina display by any chance?

BigRed

leftquark wrote: »

I've taken a look at the images and it does look like FF is showing sharper images than Chrome. I'll pass along to the team and see what we can find out / determine.

If it helps, I'm still seeing much softer images in Chrome than in Firefox. I'm not using a Retina display.

Haldog

Image quality in Google Chrome
Hi all.

Does anyone why (and if there's a way to fix it) images on my website look soft when viewing in Chrome -unlike in Safari where they look nice and sharp?

www.halshinnie.com

Any help much appreciated - as always!

Thanks,
Hal.

Jtring

Does this Dgrin thread match what you are seeing? http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=256626
The only fix I know for that is to use the sizes button and use one of the display copy sizes (X3-large, X2-large, large, etc.) instead of the default "fill".
There's been discussion of issues with retina displays too, but since I don't have one others will have to jump in there.