Dulicating photos- does it lessen quality?

WinsomeWorks

Related to an answer I got in another thread, I'd like to ask about making a second copy of photos here, using the tool under the photo when in a gallery. At first, I thought it was a great tool. But a few photos I duplicated came out looking a little "funky", i.e. noisy or not quite as clear, etc. as the originals. I don't think it was my imagination. Does this make sense based on how they're duplicated? I mean, would this be a result of jpg compression, etc.? One reason I'd like to know is that if people order prints from those galleries with dupes, I wonder if these would be the same quality as the originals. If not, a better process would be to upload the original again-- however, it's much more time-consuming.

Allen

WinsomeWorks wrote:

Related to an answer I got in another thread, I'd like to ask about making a second copy of photos here, using the tool under the photo when in a gallery. At first, I thought it was a great tool. But a few photos I duplicated came out looking a little "funky", i.e. noisy or not quite as clear, etc. as the originals. I don't think it was my imagination. Does this make sense based on how they're duplicated? I mean, would this be a result of jpg compression, etc.? One reason I'd like to know is that if people order prints from those galleries with dupes, I wonder if these would be the same quality as the originals. If not, a better process would be to upload the original again-- however, it's much more time-consuming.

I think it dups your original and creates new display copies so there shouldn't
be any difference.

birchfield

yeah, i've noticed a similar thing happening with the 'replace photo' tool
where the new replacement image appears blurry and not so clear

Andy

birchfield wrote:

yeah, i've noticed a similar thing happening with the 'replace photo' tool
where the new replacement image appears blurry and not so clear

Can you show me an example from your gallery so I can see?

Andy

WinsomeWorks wrote:

Related to an answer I got in another thread, I'd like to ask about making a second copy of photos here, using the tool under the photo when in a gallery. At first, I thought it was a great tool. But a few photos I duplicated came out looking a little "funky", i.e. noisy or not quite as clear, etc. as the originals. I don't think it was my imagination. Does this make sense based on how they're duplicated? I mean, would this be a result of jpg compression, etc.? One reason I'd like to know is that if people order prints from those galleries with dupes, I wonder if these would be the same quality as the originals. If not, a better process would be to upload the original again-- however, it's much more time-consuming.

If the file dimensions are divisible by 16, the function will be lossless -and the copies should be identical.

Look here:



Original


2nd Copy

Feel free to grab the origis and compare.

If you have a link to an image I'm happy to investigate

WinsomeWorks

I'll see what I can find, Andy- I know I "tossed" a couple out. I had the same experience with the "replace photo" tool as well, where I tried replacing an unedited photo with the edited one, and it ended up looking nastier. If nothing else, I can try duping a couple of the same ones again & see if I notice anything.

WinsomeWorks

Not seeing problems right now
Andy, I can't find any noticable differences between copies and originals right now. Thanks for explaining how the copies work. I didn't re-try the "replace photo" tool. I thought of a couple possibilities for why the copies may have looked worse in the past. See if they make sense. The two galleries with copies vs. originals at some point may have had different settings from one another-- for instance, one definitely had higher sharpening levels set than the other. On lower-light photos, might this have given a more noisy appearance? I know that two copies I "tossed" from my slideshow gallery were just this type of photo, when I thought the copy looked blurry or noisy. Higher sharpening in that gallery may have increased already-present artifacting for that view. (one was red berries on black, ambient light, no flash)

Also, I at one point had one gallery set on "original" for largest size viewable. The other was set on "large". Might that make a difference? Related to that question, I wondered whether it makes a slideshow any faster if you have chosen a smaller size (in "customize gallery") for the largest viewing size. My slideshow is slow at times, especially in I.E. Firefox is better. If the gallery is unlisted, I see no problem with having a smaller size set. But if I list it & people want prints, it should have larger ones available.