How to control the 600/800 sizes myself?

jfriend

For photos that I want to sell prints of, I'm finding that I sometimes want more control over the conversion to low and medium resolution than the auto-conversion that smugmug does. For my family pics, the auto-conversion is very convenient and works fine, but it makes pretty highly compressed images for the medium and large sizes and I find that sometimes I'd like to control that resizing/sharpening process myself on a subset of images that I'm thinking about selling.

I know that I could upload my own 600 pixel and 800 pixel versions, but if I do that, then they aren't linked to a high-res version for when a customer wants to order prints so that part of the service doesn't work.

So, how would I have the high res version available for printing, but also be able to do my own conversions/uploads for the 600 and 800 pixel sizes?

--John

Andy

jfriend wrote:

For photos that I want to sell prints of, I'm finding that I sometimes want more control over the conversion to low and medium resolution than the auto-conversion that smugmug does. For my family pics, the auto-conversion is very convenient and works fine, but it makes pretty highly compressed images for the medium and large sizes and I find that sometimes I'd like to control that resizing/sharpening process myself on a subset of images that I'm thinking about selling.

I know that I could upload my own 600 pixel and 800 pixel versions, but if I do that, then they aren't linked to a high-res version for when a customer wants to order prints so that part of the service doesn't work.

So, how would I have the high res version available for printing, but also be able to do my own conversions/uploads for the 600 and 800 pixel sizes?

--John

no can do, at least as of now.
it's something i've requested. hang in there.

dashphotography

Iv'e been round and round with this from the start.
What I've been told is it's a matter of the user's on dial up and speed. It's that fine balance between pleasing all users. I too think the compression...and I'll say it nicely....leaves alot to be desired.

I had the same thought as you but it doesn't solve the problem if they want to buy a print because you want it to print from the original file.

Just an FYI, Smugmug also applies some sharpening to your pics when they convert as well. I had halos in many of my pics and thought it was something I was doing. I figured my 20D with in camera sharpening, with a little more I added in Photoshop CS, with a 3rd sharpening by Smugmug might have been the problem.

I have switched to NO in camera sharpening, bought "The Photoshop CS Book for Digital Photography by Scott Kelby" and follow some of his methods. This is a great book by the way. I use his Lab Color Sharpening method where you sharpen only the lightness channel and not the A&B color layers. This eliminates any color haloing or odd things appearing. I apply a light Unsharp Mask to this layer which is very light. 85%, Radius 1, Threshold 4 which he recommends for a general (light) all purpose sharpening. Again, I apply no sharpening in the camera.

I have to say that after doing all of these steps that my small, medium, and large images created by Smugmug still do not look up to par in my book. Take a look through my galleries and see what a too high of a compression saved for web does to the faces and face masks of the youth hockey that I shoot. (www.dashphotography.com) Not so much the close up head shots...but every shot that is further away...smaller face & face mask...less detail to begin with...and the compression distorts it. It's not as bad on the close ups but it is there a tiny amount. It gets magnified on a face farther away that has a smaller concentration of pixels in that area. The different depths of field and vertical & horizontal bars on a face mask with the face behind add to the compexity and compression distortion.

I have heard the it looks fine in my monitor but I work in technology here at Cisco Systems and I have walked around the office here and had collegues pull up my site on their systems and it looks the same no matter what monitor. It's not my monitor...and obviously by the posts...other people are seeing this too with their pictures. Something is going on and my guess is that it has to do with the quality and compression that is being applied by Smugmug by what-ever method they are using for save for web and sharpening. I thought I heard or read somewhere that it was about a level 4? More sharpening cannot help either.


For having a professional account, I agree with you in the fact that I wish we had more control over how our pictures look online. Hockey for instance is a very expensive sport to play...ice time, equipment, etc. Of the 15 players on my son's team...only 3 parents have dialup. The rest are spending the money for broadband or they have access to it at work.

There has to be a way we can show higher quality web versions of our images. Your only other solution is to save them yourself in the smaller size but no extra sharpening and about a level 10 or 12 compression, turn OFF the shopping cart, and make every parent email you for the pictures they want. Then you would have to process just the files they want and either replace the small one you created with the new file, or upload the new file to a gallery just for them.....and then tell them it's available for purchase now. Too much work on our part just to display a higher resolution picture at the lowest compression!

I really like all the other things Smugmug has to offer but I would like to see an alternative here for the professional account. The other thing really high on my wish list is the ability for us to set an online promotional code so if we have a group of customers we want to give 25% off their total bill then we can do so very easily instead of making a whole new duplicate, passworded gallery, that has pricing just for that group. Again..too much work on our part to offer a discount!

Shawn.

Baldy

Hi Shawn,

Not to defend our settings and flow, because we're open to other ideas, but one reason we don't do color space conversions is it's too controversial among photographers who worry about damage to their files. RGB > LAB > RGB is theoretically close to lossless but as you can see there are many who feel passionately it shouldn't be done:

http://www.ledet.com/margulis/ACT_postings/ColorCorrection/ACT-LAB-damage.htm

There are some things we can do in RGB, however, and two candidates could be no sharpening in the blue channel, which is typically the noisiest, or fading the unsharp mask using luminosity. That's a popular technique that produces good results for people who are concerned about halos.

The thing is our sharpening is set at 20%, radius 1, and it's difficult to understand how that can have much effect on halos.

I think what people see more often is jpeg artifacts. By way of reference, we save at 80% (the Photoshop save for web equivalent).

In any case, I can certainly understand the desire to place your own unaltered originals in place of the 600 & 800-pixel images we display. They could be prepared quite differently than the original because USM for display is quite different than USM for print, for example.

dashphotography

Thanks for the response.
Thanks for your post. I hope that someday there might be a way we can select that we want nothing done to our images except the ability to save at 100%.

I did read the link you posted and I saw it was a topic discussion from 2001. I guess everyone has their opinion on different sharpening methods etc. I bought Scott Kelbys book because it deals with the latest version of photoshop CS and was written very recently. I have no idea whether his methods in the book are right or wrong, but the few that are in there that he does I guess I trust them because his book says he is the editor and chief of photoshop user magazine, president of the national association of photoshop professionals, and some other titles. Many photographers and graphic designers all pointed me to his books. I personally see no degradation or loss of quality when I do RGB, Lab Mode (sharpen lightness channel), back to RGB. This is done only once. The discussion topic you sent had comments about CYMK, LAB, CYMK and going back and forth 25 times. At any rate they are all going to have their own opinions. I just take Kelby's word for his methods.

It all boils down to when I view my photos, the way I edited them and when they are saved for web at a high or highest setting, I do not see the artifacts in those pictures. When I compare the one I did on my screen to the same picture that was altered and saved by Smugmug....they do not look even close. You are right and it has to be the artifacts we are seeing from the 80% only compression.

I'm getting ready to start shooting some youth soccer and since it's outdoors and since they don't wear face masks......compression and artifacts may not be AS noticable I hope. Anyhow as you can tell it's a hot topic for me but I only hope that one day you guys can come up with an on off button or a convert at lowest possible compression button so the professional accounts can have better control of the output ourselves.

Thanks for your support!

Shawn.

mercphoto

dashphotography wrote:

What I've been told is it's a matter of the user's on dial up and speed. It's that fine balance between pleasing all users. I too think the compression...and I'll say it nicely....leaves alot to be desired.

I actually wonder how much people pay attention to how the images look on their computer monitors before they make a purchase decision. I think most users don't know to look for halos and artifacts. They look at the image for emotional appeal and general pleasant looks. If you have ever been to a JC Penny Photo Studio, you'll see their preview stations have horrible monitors. And yet they still sell images.

dashphotography

Well personally I'm a hockey parent as well and I may be overly crucial of my work. But if I were looking at a photo online and clicked on large, and could not make out the face and eyes of my child in the picture when it's clearly visible....I'm not sure I would buy it. As a photographer...the picture online in my opinion is a reflection of the quailty of my work. With that being said, I want to show off my work to the best of my ability. If the pic on my monitor before I upload to smugmug looks great, I can see the face, the rosey cold cheeks and make out the kids eyes. I want to see that when I upload it.

Truth be told yes even a great looking pic on my monitor before upload to smugmug, looks even better when I see the same thing back from the printer. Some parents look for an expression on their kids face or a look in their eyes in a pic. You can't see that when the compression ruins it all. Again someone else is fine with those pics being a reflection of their work. I know those pics are better and how good they looked before I uploaded them. I would like to strive to see the same quality after the upload. If it means for my broadband clients the pic takes 2 seconds longer to load. fine. If I have to pay for more bandwith. fine. I want to show off the best possible quality that I can...and that's just me. You only have one chance to make a first impression.

I can show my portfolio to clients in the rink all day long and they see first had the printed quality. It's the events that I may shoot where every parent does not get to see my portfolio that has no idea of the quality of my work. My first impression as a photographer to them is the 80% compressed medium picture on smugmug where their childs face and face mask is distorted.....unless it just happens to be a close up head shot that might look half way decent.

I did a 30 day trial at Image Event after I had already signed up for Smugmug. Their upload program lets you actually choose how much compression you want in the conversion. High, Medium, or Low. And I don't think they sharpen. However, I'm not with them, I'm still with Smugmug because of what they offer. Image Event does not let me set pricing or do the advanced things that I can with Smugmug. Customer service with Smugmug is some of the best I have seen anywhere with any product. The compression thing is just one thing I would like to see improved because I know my pics look better, and I know Smugmug can eventually provide a work around!

mercphoto

dashphotography wrote:

Well personally I'm a hockey parent as well and I may be overly crucial of my work.

Which is almost certainly the case. Its an occupational hazard. My girlfriend and I have this conversation often. We'll find things we don't like about an image her or I made, but people will love it. They either don't see the flaws, or they see something else in the image that over powers the flaws.

I think its really easy in the Digital age to forget that its not technical correctness that makes an image move us. I think its also easy to forget that we can see the flaws that others don't.

I'm honestly worried about minor issues to on-screen images. I don't think people expect the image on their computer to be exactly what the final print will be. I believe there are more important things for me to worry about.

Andy

color management discussion moved to it's own thread

here