What's with JPEG artifacts?

unsavory

What is up with the JPEG artifacts on the resized images I have uploaded. What JPEG quality level are you guys using when resizing the images for display?

They didn't used to be this bad from what I remember. Did you recently make some changes to your compression methods?

rainforest1155

unsavory wrote:

What is up with the JPEG artifacts on the resized images I have uploaded. What JPEG quality level are you guys using when resizing the images for display?

They didn't used to be this bad from what I remember. Did you recently make some changes to your compression methods?

Please show us some examples of where you've seen artifacts. Without links nobody's able to help you.

wxwax

unsavory wrote:

What is up with the JPEG artifacts on the resized images I have uploaded. What JPEG quality level are you guys using when resizing the images for display?

They didn't used to be this bad from what I remember. Did you recently make some changes to your compression methods?

10, in Photoshop.

unsavory

wxwax wrote:

10, in Photoshop.

My photoshop version is fine. It is the version that SmugMug has resized that has the severe artifacts.

http://unsavory.smugmug.com/gallery/382984/1/15323205

rainforest1155

I haven't paid much attention to artifacts so far, but after having a closer look at the house-shot of unsavory I agree that there are a lot at the roofs with the sky in the background. I guess on architecture pictures it's easier to spot compression.

Baldy

Hmmm, that's an interesting case. We haven't made any changes, but this is the hardest kind of image to handle -- a very sharp, high-contrast line with nearly solid colors on either side.

I'm rushing out to something at the moment, but when I come back I'll investigate more.

Thanks,
Baldy

fish

I've seen some weirdness too at the large size. Check out the sky funkiness in this one.

The jpeg displays fine on my system in both preview and photoshop.

dashphotography

Yes I see it in the roof line in his photo.
I can see it in the large version of his photo here:


http://unsavory.smugmug.com/gallery/382984/1/15273623/Large

This is the same thing I have been saying about my pictures since I signed up for my account here is that there is something going on that I do not see when I post my pictures on other sites or in any of my different sized jpegs I view in my Photoshop CS. Here is the example of mine:

Look at what happens around the helmet against the green background.
http://dashphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/355681/1/14211985/Large


In the origninal it does not show up as much around the helmet but it shows up around all the bars of the face mask:
http://dashphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/355681/1/14211985/Original

fish wrote:

I've seen some weirdness too at the large size. Check out the sky funkiness in this one.

The jpeg displays fine on my system in both preview and photoshop.

Baldy

I'd be interested to know which of these three you find most pleasing, or are they all a problem?

rainforest1155

Sorry Baldy, but it's obviously visible in all 3. The largest (3rd) is of course the best of all 3, but not good enough.
That's really the hardest part about JPG...for most pictures you don't need that much quality, but there'll be always some who need it.

Maybe you should offer an option per gallery where people can choose to between HQ-pictures (but quickly eating up bandwith) and your normal ones, which are sufficient for most photos (+ save the user some bandwith).

Whenever the user feels the need to sacrifice a little quality for more bandwith, he should be able to change it. Yeah, I know this will be causing some server load.

dashphotography

3rd One is the best. Yes options would be nice.
the 3rd one is the best. Yes I agree. I think an option for pro users to have NO sharpening at all would be great. As well as maybe an option to choose the quality level of the jpeg compression. Say...a photoshop save for web jpeg at quality 8, 10, and TWELVE 12. Or low compression, medium compression, and high compression like they do on www.imageevent.com

shawn.

rainforest1155 wrote:

Sorry Baldy, but it's obviously visible in all 3. The largest (3rd) is of course the best of all 3, but not good enough.
That's really the hardest part about JPG...for most pictures you don't need that much quality, but there'll be always some who need it.

Maybe offer an option per gallery where people can choose to between HQ-pictures (but quickly eating up bandwith) and your normal ones, which are sufficient for most photos (+ save the user some bandwith).

Whenever the user feels the need to sacrifice a little quality for more bandwith, he should be able to change it. Yeah, I know this will be causing some server load.

Baldy

So here's the dilemma... One image is from PBase and weighs in at 56KB, the smugmug version is 66KB, and ImageEvent's is 77KB. I looked at a dozen other sites, but those three seem to have the best image quality.

Because we have an extra 10KB load over PBase (a lot for someone on dial-up) and more than that for other sites, we're continually getting dinged about speed — the thing every visitor notices on every page. It's hard to explain that it's total bytes on the page that they're seeing and that if they look closely at the right images that are artifact-prone, they'll see that they're higher quality and worth waiting xx longer for xx more bytes.

We get a big smile when someone notices the extra image quality over PBase, but it only happens once every two months or so from someone with a fine eye and an image like this one that shows the artifacts. But in the same email they'll sometimes comment that PBase gets the edge for load times. Very few people know that if the servers are exactly the same speed our pages will appear to be slower than a site with lower quality images. Their perception is we should make the servers faster.

To go to ImageEvent's image size would take us further down the path of reducing page load times which would please the one and displease the ninety nine, unfortunately.

I wish I had a better answer for you.

Thanks,
Baldy

rainforest1155

Baldy wrote:

So here's the dilemma... One image is from PBase and weighs in at 56KB, the smugmug version is 66KB, and ImageEvent's is 77KB. I looked at a dozen other sites, but those three seem to have the best image quality.

You really got me...I thought you created these 3 different versions for testing purposes.
Thanks for the detailed answear on the backgrounds of your quality decision. It's almost impossible to please everyone and I especially forgot about dial-up users.
I'm used to have broadband @ home, university, my parents...and even there it's sometimes relativly slow and imagining dial-up... :uhoh

Nikolai

I'm OK with #2

Baldy wrote:

I'd be interested to know which of these three you find most pleasing, or are they all a problem?

Even though #3 has the least amount of jpegness. On #1 is kinda too visible..

HTH

Cheers!

Baldy

Nikolai wrote:

Even though #3 has the least amount of jpegness. On #1 is kinda too visible..

HTH

Cheers!

#1 is from PBase.

Nikolai

Can't we have the best of both worlds?
Provide an option for compression? At least at a pro-level, the same you do with pricing. Defaults for the whole portfolio, and then per-gallery. User can leave it at (or always reset it to) default (which would be what YOU guys think is the best), but also can customize it. There can be also "kwick" setup, like "best quality" vs "best performance". Sorry to bring the W-word, but I'm talking about what Windows let you do:



I understand it's a challenge to bring this stuff into UI, and I remember what has been said about the "computer literacy" level of an average SM user (btw - is "best fit" avaialbe yet?;-), but - hey, it does not need to be "in your face", you know.. Somewhere in phototools, like custom pricing. And you can test it on volunteers first, then rollout to pros, then whatever..

HTH

Baldy

rainforest1155 wrote:

I'm used to have broadband @ home, university, my parents...and even there it's sometimes relativly slow and imagining dial-up... :uhoh

There are so many factors to consider... :cry For example, when we deliver larger images your browser cache fills up with them and you wonder why it takes so long to fetch a page you've been to before. It's sometimes because Firefox or IE is pulling up the images from your cache more slowly than you would have imagined.

Thanks,
Baldy

Baldy

Nikolai wrote:

Provide an option for compression?

We could, but we wince when we receive the emails to help that say, "smugmug is dog slow." I've chased a few of those down in the past and it's been from photographers uploading pristine 800 or 600-pixel images that get used at the medium or large images.

It's the same reason we place gallery style choices such as Elegant and Elegant Small in the hands of users, because its too hard for any of us to know what connection and monitor people have, but they sure get mad if things are slow for them or they have to scroll.

I hope this helps.

Baldy

rainforest1155

Baldy wrote:

We could, but we wince when we receive the emails to help that say, "smugmug is dog slow." I've chased a few of those down in the past and it's been from photographers uploading pristine 800 or 600-pixel images that get used at the medium or large images.

Does that mean you don't recompress my saved at 95% 800x600 pictures and just strip out EXIF+IPTC? :eek1
I just checked for my self. :eek1

Guess I'll have to rethink my workflow...

georges

Baldy wrote:

So here's the dilemma... One image is from PBase and weighs in at 56KB, the smugmug version is 66KB, and ImageEvent's is 77KB. I looked at a dozen other sites, but those three seem to have the best image quality.

OK, I've looked at the images and don't see any difference. I'm going to say it's my monitor, or my bifocals.

Just for the education of myself and others that are silent, would you be able to blow up an example of the artifacts you're talking about.

After working at the screen all day, I think my eyes are too shot to see the difference at normal size.

Thanks

Baldy

Here's the darkside of going for fewer artifacts:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=6204

Nikolai

I didn't know, but I'm glad to know now :-)

Baldy wrote:

#1 is from PBase.

I had some problems with their service... as well as with some of their "supporters".. But I guess that's just me:-)

Funny, despite of the "praised" speed and obvious low quality, I cannot reach their server in at least 50% of cases, sometimes more often.


PS
did you get my email about db?

Cheers!

dashphotography

Here georges: There is enough of a Halo around this kids helmet that he could also wear his hockey outfit on halloween and pass as an angel as well.

http://dashphotography.smugmug.com/gallery/355681/1/14211985/Large

georges wrote:

OK, I've looked at the images and don't see any difference. I'm going to say it's my monitor, or my bifocals.

Just for the education of myself and others that are silent, would you be able to blow up an example of the artifacts you're talking about.

After working at the screen all day, I think my eyes are too shot to see the difference at normal size.

Thanks

Baldy

rainforest1155 wrote:

Does that mean you don't recompress my saved at 95% 800x600 pictures and just strip out EXIF+IPTC? :eek1

That's the way it should work, yes. We did that for people who really need to chase down every last artifact.

The darkside is 95% is a setting that will make your dial-up admirers pucker. And it's quite far beyond a setting that can make a visual difference.

Baldy

georges wrote:

OK, I've looked at the images and don't see any difference. I'm going to say it's my monitor, or my bifocals.

Most people can't see them, from what I can tell.

On Dashphotography's monitor, for some reason they stand out as big halos. He showed some images in this thread that even Andy, Greaper and I couldn't see on our monitors but were obvious on his. I blew them up to 400% in Photoshop and still couldn't see them.

rainforest1155

Baldy wrote:

That's the way it should work, yes. We did that for people who really need to chase down every last artifact.

The darkside is 95% is a setting that will make your dial-up admirers pucker. And it's quite far beyond a setting that can make a visual difference.

This shouldn't be a problem when dial-up users use medium or small in my case?
For the moment this should be the solution for them, but for the future

I'll try to change my workflow according to the fact.
On what quality levels does smugmug save JPGs just as a referrence for me to start?