Veiwing quality has changed???

Trish323 · June 18, 2005

Has anyone else noticed that photos are not viewing clear and clean? I don't know if it is something I am doing or a change that was implemented by smugmug. Every photo I have uploaded this past week looks awful...help!

ian408 · June 18, 2005

I've not noticed any change in images.

Is it possible your monitor or graphics card settings have changed? Brightness,
contrast or resolution/color settings maybe?

Ian

Baldy · June 19, 2005

We didn't change any settings, but one thing people frequently run into is the color space thing:

http://www.smugmug.com/help/srgb-versus-adobe-rgb-1998

Here's a help section of other things that can go wrong:

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

zedEL · June 20, 2005

I noticed the same thing - a little washed out and some photos have oversharpening effect, which I haven't seen at my photos even at magnification.

SM uses Lanczos to sharpen the photos one more time ?
If it's correct, what are the guidelines for the Correct un-sharpening for Smugmug ?
For example: I use around 130 at radius 1.3 - it's just about right.
Should I lower to 100..or something ?

Baldy · June 21, 2005

Lanczos is the resampling algorithm and generally considered the best there is except that it's slow. It's not a sharpening process but does preserve more detail and so less sharpening is required after resampling.

Here's a thread where we decided how much to sharpen:

http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=2719

In general, pros like less sharpening than consumers and people who shoot portraits like less than people who shoot sports, landscapes, etc.

For portraits, people like their skin soft but their eyes sharp.

I'll generally sharpen a portrait 35-40% and other shots 60-90%. Smugmug is applying 20% unsharp mask after resampling, just enough to restore it's original sharpness.

I hope this helps.

Thanks,
Baldy

zedEL · June 21, 2005

Thank you Baldy,

60-90% is it Amount in Photoshop ?
The Radius should be probably around 2 ?

Thanks!

zedEL · June 21, 2005

I've read this thread you mentioned.

Yeah, with people, the less is better.
I've noticed that something is wrong when I saw my photos of gemstone jewelry. They are definitely way down in quality. I redid one of the photos again, but the result was the same - washed out and totaly bad.

Baldy · June 21, 2005

zedEL wrote:

washed out and totaly bad.

Can you point me to the photo?

zedEL · June 21, 2005

http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-Th.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-S.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-M.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-L.jpg

Thanks Baldy!
Maybe it's my fault. I used around 150(maybe more) Amount and Radius 0.7

Andy · June 21, 2005

zedEL wrote:

http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-Th.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-S.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-M.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-L.jpg

Thanks Baldy!
Maybe it's my fault. I used around 150(maybe more) Amount and Radius 0.7

they look fine to me, color-wise -- as do the rest of the pics on your monitor. i'm on mac, 23" cinema display, using safari browser.

does your monitor need calibration?

(photo by zedEL)

zedEL · June 22, 2005

: Thanks Andy!

I like what I see here, but the medium size that I allow to see is not that good.
I guess I need callibration.
I've never done this thing. How do you suggest to do that ?
Just simple adjustments or with a software ?

Thanks!

Andy · June 22, 2005

zedEL wrote:

: Thanks Andy!

I like what I see here, but the medium size that I allow to see is not that good.
I guess I need callibration.
I've never done this thing. How do you suggest to do that ?
Just simple adjustments or with a software ?

Thanks!

search the forum for "calibration" and also you might allow folks to view large sizes

zedEL · June 22, 2005

andy wrote:

search the forum for "calibration" and also you might allow folks to view large sizes

yeah...I was curious how everybody here do with the Large files, to allow viewing...not to allow...

Thanks!

Barb · June 22, 2005

zedEL wrote:

yeah...I was curious how everybody here do with the Large files, to allow viewing...not to allow...

Thanks!

I've struggled with this myself and finally decided to allow viewing of the large files and right-click protect them. I don't like the big "proof" watermark. To me, it distracts too much from the photo.

Baldy · June 23, 2005

zedEL wrote:

http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-Th.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-S.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-M.jpg
http://zedEL.smugmug.com/photos/25697716-L.jpg

Thanks Baldy!
Maybe it's my fault. I used around 150(maybe more) Amount and Radius 0.7

Sorry to ask another question, but can you point me to the original you uploaded?

Thanks,
Baldy

zedEL · June 23, 2005

Didn't know how to get the link to the original, so here is the gallery:

http://zedel.smugmug.com/gallery/600777/1/25697716

Thanks!
zedEL

Trish323 · July 2, 2005

Trish323 wrote:

Has anyone else noticed that photos are not viewing clear and clean? I don't know if it is something I am doing or a change that was implemented by smugmug. Every photo I have uploaded this past week looks awful...help!

It was ALL MY FAULT! But I figured that....I am very pleased now that I have made a few key changes to how I have been saving my photos for smugmug.

here is what I do now with great results:

Shoot raw/NEF
Make adjustments in NC
save as 16 bit Tiff
make sure sRGB
Open in Photoshop
crop if needed
change image size to 800 on longest side
in Mode>Switch to 8 bit
save as JPEG..making sure 'Constrain proportions" and 'Bilinear" are selected,
I save at 10.

I did lots of trial and error as my depth of knowledge is limited when it comes to photoshop....but I am just very happy now with how my shots are displaying on smugmug...

Veiwing quality has changed???

Comments