Watermark and Reduced Overall Quality

ResnickPhoto

Hey All,

My uploaded pictures with watermarks look very bad, very bad compared to the same pictures without watermarks. It appears that selecting watermarking reduced the overall quality. Is there any way around this?

I took off the watermarks and checked "no" for Large Images as a workaround to get some level of protection for the photos. Even without the degradation of watermarking I am not happy with the quality of online viewing. http://resnickphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1341095

At this point I am very worried that clients are not going to be interested in my prints due to the poor screen quality.

I searched and could not find a thread addressing this issue specifically. Please direct me if I missed it. Thanks, Adam

Andy

ResnickPhoto wrote:

Hey All,

My uploaded pictures with watermarks look very bad, very bad compared to the same pictures without watermarks. It appears that selecting watermarking reduced the overall quality. Is there any way around this?

I took off the watermarks and checked "no" for Large Images as a workaround to get some level of protection for the photos. Even without the degradation of watermarking I am not happy with the quality of online viewing. http://resnickphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1341095

At this point I am very worried that clients are not going to be interested in my prints due to the poor screen quality.

I searched and could not find a thread addressing this issue specifically. Please direct me if I missed it. Thanks, Adam

Hi Adam,

welcome to Dgrin, and to SmugMug! Watermarking on SmugMug does not change the jpg quality of your -L, -M, -S, -Th, -Ti images in any way. And we don't change the -O at all, as you are probably aware.

Interesting you should bring up this post today - we recently changed our jpg compression, significantly lessening the amount by which we compress for the resized images, resulting in what most feel is far better image quality. I looked at your photos,

http://resnickphoto.smugmug.com/photos/63533275-L-1.jpg

and they look good to me.

I'm interested in your post-processing workflow, and also what sort of monitor and resolution you are viewing on?

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

We hope to have user-settable watermarks in the future.

ResnickPhoto

Thanks Andy for the very quick reply.

I set up a couple of demo photos here with two versions of the same shot watermarked and unwatermarked:
http://resnickphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1348526

The difference between the same photo, viewed in size L, watermarked and non-watermarked is very apparent to me. At smaller sizes it is not.

Regarding post processing and monitor. I select, crop and rename using ACDSeePro. In PS CS2 I apply USM Amount 100%, Radius 1.5, Threshold 1. Then I reduce the size to 2500x2000 JPG, quality 8. Then I upload.
I calibrate regularly and my screen to print comparison is generally spot on.

In the Watermark Comparison gallery I uploaded the photo, and selected Make 2nd Copy from photo tools.

Could the problem be driven by an additional save to JPG and the pixelation that can go along with that?

And since I have your ear, I put in a strong vote for:
-Customizable watermarking and
-Much bigger single uploads

Thanks much, Adam

Andy wrote:

Hi Adam,

welcome to Dgrin, and to SmugMug! Watermarking on SmugMug does not change the jpg quality of your -L, -M, -S, -Th, -Ti images in any way. And we don't change the -O at all, as you are probably aware.

Interesting you should bring up this post today - we recently changed our jpg compression, significantly lessening the amount by which we compress for the resized images, resulting in what most feel is far better image quality. I looked at your photos,

http://resnickphoto.smugmug.com/photos/63533275-L-1.jpg

and they look good to me.

I'm interested in your post-processing workflow, and also what sort of monitor and resolution you are viewing on?

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

We hope to have user-settable watermarks in the future.

Andy

ResnickPhoto wrote:

Thanks Andy for the very quick reply.

I set up a couple of demo photos here with two versions of the same shot watermarked and unwatermarked:
http://resnickphoto.smugmug.com/gallery/1348526

The difference between the same photo, viewed in size L, watermarked and non-watermarked is very apparent to me. At smaller sizes it is not.

That's such a good shot. I don't see the difference that you are seeing - why not let's have some other folks, look too? Stay tuned.

ResnickPhoto wrote:

Regarding post processing and monitor. I select, crop and rename using ACDSeePro. In PS CS2 I apply USM Amount 100%, Radius 1.5, Threshold 1. Then I reduce the size to 2500x2000 JPG, quality 8. Then I upload.
I calibrate regularly and my screen to print comparison is generally spot on.

Hm. I'd suggest a lower radius amount, I'm usually at .4 and also 0 threshhold. Remember, the -L and smaller files are getting some added sharpening from us - during the display copy creation process. I also recommend jpg 10, which is Lab quality.

ResnickPhoto wrote:

In the Watermark Comparison gallery I uploaded the photo, and selected Make 2nd Copy from photo tools.

Could the problem be driven by an additional save to JPG and the pixelation that can go along with that?

No, I shouldn't think so.

ResnickPhoto wrote:

And since I have your ear, I put in a strong vote for:
-Customizable watermarking and
-Much bigger single uploads

Thanks much, Adam

Working on the first one. On the second one - the Universal Drag and Drop Loader is unlimited - as many photos and you can drop in that green smuggy, you can uplaod
http://www.smugmug.com/help/upload-pictures

Also, you can try our 3rd party uploaders:
http://www.smugmug.com/hack/hacks-apps

SendToSmugMug and
Star Exploerer are both very popular!

ResnickPhoto

Thanks
Andy, Wow man, it's Sunday....you and I should both be relaxing instead of working....

I'll give the settings you've suggested a look. Thanks for the advice on the universal uploader. That will solve a lot of headaches for me.

If I go with JPG 10 compression, do you have a suggested set of pixel size parameters that will reduce upload size? Maybe I am going too big on size, too low on compression. Thanks again, Adam

Andy wrote:

That's such a good shot. I don't see the difference that you are seeing - why not let's have some other folks, look too? Stay tuned.


Hm. I'd suggest a lower radius amount, I'm usually at .4 and also 0 threshhold. Remember, the -L and smaller files are getting some added sharpening from us - during the display copy creation process. I also recommend jpg 10, which is Lab quality.

No, I shouldn't think so.

Working on the first one. On the second one - the Universal Drag and Drop Loader is unlimited - as many photos and you can drop in that green smuggy, you can uplaod
http://www.smugmug.com/help/upload-pictures

Also, you can try our 3rd party uploaders:
http://www.smugmug.com/hack/hacks-apps

SendToSmugMug and
Star Exploerer are both very popular!

Andy

ResnickPhoto wrote:

Andy, Wow man, it's Sunday....you and I should both be relaxing instead of working....

I'll give the settings you've suggested a look. Thanks for the advice on the universal uploader. That will solve a lot of headaches for me.

If I go with JPG 10 compression, do you have a suggested set of pixel size parameters that will reduce upload size? Maybe I am going too big on size, too low on compression. Thanks again, Adam

365 days a year, we're hear for you!

I do NOT recommend resising for SmugMug. Just upload all the original pixels as many as you can. Your customers and your prints will thank you.

JPG 10 and good to go.

ResnickPhoto

Can do
Thanks for the advice on that. I'm a bit surprised since that is going to yield some much bigger files, but with the universal downloader, it should be easier. Thanks again for the very quick answers. Adam

Andy wrote:

365 days a year, we're hear for you!

I do NOT recommend resising for SmugMug. Just upload all the original pixels as many as you can. Your customers and your prints will thank you.

JPG 10 and good to go.

georges

proof comparison shot
Comparing the large sizes, I see no difference other than the word "proof".

See you later, gs
georgesphotos.net

bwg

i see a big difference in the original and proof shot

more noise in the OOF areas, and a lot of jpeg artifacts around the riders glasses and upper back.

viewed on my mac lappy.

Sheaf

I duplicated it and it does seem to be broken. Artifacts are clearly visible at a lower resolution and the watermarked images are significantly smaller in terms of file size. This is an oversight and I'll make sure to look into it and keep you updated.

renstar

I see what might be slightly worse on the "PROOF" copy around say, the glasses, but when I went into the lightbox, and went to look at original size, i couldnt tell a difference. Of course, I then realized that neither one had "PROOF" written on it. Is this a bug? If it isn't doesn't it defeat the purpose of the watermark?

-Russ

Mike Lane

renstar wrote:

I see what might be slightly worse on the "PROOF" copy around say, the glasses, but when I went into the lightbox, and went to look at original size, i couldnt tell a difference. Of course, I then realized that neither one had "PROOF" written on it. Is this a bug? If it isn't doesn't it defeat the purpose of the watermark?

-Russ

According to the smugmug help files, the watermark does not get put on the original size image because it is the original size image that is sent to the printer and you wouldn't want "proof" getting printed on all your shots If you're going to use a watermark, you need to also hide the original size images in the gallery options.

renstar

Thats what i figured was going on, but it seems rather silly, why not just watermark a copy of the original if O is being shown. Anyway, pay no bother

Mike Lane wrote:

According to the smugmug help files, the watermark does not get put on the original size image because it is the original size image that is sent to the printer and you wouldn't want "proof" getting printed on all your shots If you're going to use a watermark, you need to also hide the original size images in the gallery options.

Sheaf

renstar wrote:

Thats what i figured was going on, but it seems rather silly, why not just watermark a copy of the original if O is being shown. Anyway, pay no bother

Because we have to create a whole new file for a watermarked photo, while still maintaining the copy without the watermark (actually, two of both if you want to get technical). Originals take up a huge proportion of our disk space.

renstar

Sheaf wrote:

Because we have to create a whole new file for a watermarked photo, while still maintaining the copy without the watermark (actually, two of both if you want to get technical). Originals take up a huge proportion of our disk space.

Indeed.. smugmug: 1; russ: 0

ResnickPhoto

Any news?
Sheaf,

Thanks for your attention. Do you have any updates on the status of the bugfix?

To other posters: I would not ordinarily leave originals enabled if I was using the watermark, but I did for this pic since I wanted everyone to be able to see the lack of artifacts in the original size file.

Thanks, Adam

Sheaf wrote:

I duplicated it and it does seem to be broken. Artifacts are clearly visible at a lower resolution and the watermarked images are significantly smaller in terms of file size. This is an oversight and I'll make sure to look into it and keep you updated.