# Losing quality when converting to JPG (a lot of quality)



## Moe (May 7, 2009)

[deleted]


----------



## Sherman Banks (May 7, 2009)

Why don't you use CS3 to save as jpeg?  And where do the photos look bad, on the net or your computer?


----------



## Samanax (May 7, 2009)

Could you post a sample picture?

Why are you using FastStone Photo Resizer instead of PS CS3 to do the resizing?


----------



## Big Mike (May 7, 2009)

I agree with the others.  If you have CS3, saving a JPEG for uploading is very easy.  

It seems to me that most of the '_poor quality JPEGs when uploaded_' problems come about when people try to upload image files that are too large and they get automatically resized somewhere along the line.  
But if you resize and compress the image yourself, before uploading to the web, there shouldn't be any problems because if the files are small enough, they should bypass any automatic resizing.  

In CS3, try the 'save for web' option.


----------



## dcclark (May 7, 2009)

Are you viewing these photos (and noticing the difference) all on your laptop, in the image editors? Or are you uploading the jpeg and THEN looking at it in a browser? That could easily be the source of your problems -- either (as others have mentioned) automatic scaling and compression from your photo hosting service, or a non-color-managed web browser.


----------



## Enem178 (May 7, 2009)

Samanax said:


> Could you post a sample picture?





+2


----------



## Moe (May 7, 2009)

[deleted]


----------



## Sherman Banks (May 7, 2009)

If you save as Jpeg with max quality, it will be difficult to notice any difference in quality from a tiff, but you wouldn't want to go back and edit the jpeg and save again.  If you're  working from RAW and not getting the save as jpeg option, convert the image to 8bit from 16bit, then it should give you the option.


----------



## Moe (May 7, 2009)

[deleted]


----------



## Moe (May 7, 2009)

[deleted]


----------



## biancarose (May 8, 2009)

I have a quick question, what size would you all suggest to resize the pictures to before uploading?


----------



## peterkipl35 (May 8, 2009)

Moe said:


> Ok, so I saved it as a jpg using the save for web option. I was still unable to do it by changing it to 8 bit. Here's the difference. It's not that dramatic between these two jpg's, but still the difference between even the better jpg and the tiff is easily discernable, especially with regards to color.
> 
> The CS3 jpg:
> 
> ...



nice, the differences are easy to see


----------



## Chris of Arabia (May 8, 2009)

biancarose said:


> I have a quick question, what size would you all suggest to resize the pictures to before uploading?



800px is the recommended maximum on the longest side. Anything larger and the default response by the site is to reduce it to 800px, unless the viewer has set a different preference in their profile.


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 6, 2011)

I have been researching this night and day for months now. I have contacted many website support specialists (many of who can not even view a difference between the photos) with out any luck of fixing this problem. I think it takes a photographers eye to see the difference. 

I have a website through wordpress, www.davidmccarthymedia.com. I typically resize my photos to max 600 w/h and save as high quality jpeg. When I view them on my website the contrast, sharpness, and vibrancy is lost. I have toggled between seeing the same photo off the web, in a blank web browser window, and using windows picture viewer. The website to having it just in a browser is a drastic difference, then the browser to viewing it on my pc is a night an day difference. 

I am just looking to have my photos viewed at their highest quality. The website takes my photos and makes them look like point and shoot snap shots, and its starting to make my blood boil because I can not get to the root of this problem.

I have tried saving the photo in every possible way and uploading them. Its always the same thing. 

My roommate is a web programmer and her can not understand it himself. His explanation is that the browsers are making the photos lighter. 

Can anyone help?
David


----------



## KmH (May 6, 2011)

No. Because not all browsers are equal.

Some are color aware, some aren't.

The web is 8-bit and sRGB. Once a Raw capture is converted, it's usually has a 16-bit depth to maximize editing headroom, and can be in any one of several RGB color spaces.

Also at issue is that most people don't calibrate their computer displays and there are different kinds of TFT-LCD display technologies like TN, PVA, IPS, AFFS, MVS, AVS.

JPEG is 8-bit only and a lossy format. It's lossy to reduce the files size. The way it reduces the file size (a 4:1 reduction in Fine mode) is by throwing away about 80% of the color data that was orginally captured by the image sensor.

In all honesty, it sounds like most of your issue is a color space problem. 

Check out the tutorials here: http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutorials.htm Scroll down to the section that covers "Color Management".


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 6, 2011)

I have tried saving it as a .png, .tiff, .jpeg, save for web, 8 bit, 16 bit, srgb, rgb, everything i can think of and the site changed it for the worst. You're thinking that the colorspace of my saved jpegs are not matching well with the web and are not able to maximized the potential of the photograph? if so what should I be saving it as?

Im so confused,
David


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 6, 2011)

I just tried going back to the .nef file in bridge, saving it as a jpeg and checking the box convert to sRGB, then in photoshop resizing it to 600H and saving it as a high quality jpeg, and as a high quality jpeg save for web. They all looked exactly the same on my website once uploaded, but on my computer using windows fax/photo viewer they all looked different. The best was save for web, showing a slight increase in quality from the save for web version. This delema is getting farther and farther from resolution...

=[


----------



## AUG19 (May 6, 2011)

Drag one of your JPEGs from your desktop into a browser window. Does it look any different from the ones hosted online?


EDIT: ignore that..i just read you tried it already.


----------



## Dao (May 6, 2011)

Do you have a flickr account? Try to upload the photos to flickr and see if they looks different from when viewing in your computer or your website.


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 6, 2011)

i have been on this for over 8 hours today. I recently uploaded a file to facebook, and to my website. I took a screen shot from my website, fb, and the raw jpeg put them into photoshop and overlapped them all as layers. When I toggle through them FB displays them closest to the raw, the difference between my website and FB are so drastic. I don't understand this. My website makes my images look like crap, yet FB leaves them alone and they look great. 

I have also tried dragging them in to firefox, chrome, and internet explorer. they all look closer to the orginal. AHHHHHHH!H!HH!Hasdhflk haskldhf kahsdkfh askdhf alsdf;

=\


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 6, 2011)

Im willing to email anyone the .psd's that show the difference if they think they can help. I have spoke with so many people today that i feel like I'm going crazy. I don't have much money, but if someone can figure this out I would be glad to send something their way.


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 6, 2011)

Here is a series jpeg of the snap shots from each viewing platform. The website (top photo) is of the poorest quality. Facebook (the middle) is close to the original (the bottom) photo.


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 6, 2011)

The contrast and color warmth are the very noticeable from top to bottom.


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 7, 2011)

After sleeping on this issue last night I realized that there is one difference between seeing them on my website and seeing them off my server, the wordpress gallery program.

step 1. I upload the files to my server via FTP
step 2. I then go into word press and import the photos using nextgen. I dont think it makes copies of the photos, I believe it just allows the program to see the photos but I could be wrong. 
step 3. I then insert the code on a post in my website allowing the images to be seen.

Its not the fact that they are online that is distorting them its that they go through this secondary uploading type process.

This is driving me mad. The only time I can view them perfectly off my website is when I use the change the options in the gallery and change the JavaScript Thumbnail effect to highslide. But then they are opening up to just a browser window and not being viewed on my website. At that point Im not entirely sure where that script is showing the image from. My server or NextGEN.

If some of this does not make sense I apologize, I am not that literate in this dept and only know what I have been able to teach myself.


----------



## KmH (May 7, 2011)

Facebook is not optimized for displaying photographs. It's a social networking web site, not a photography web site.

You are spinning your wheels. 

For online display the 1 color space that works the best is - *sRGB *- and then only if the browser used is color-aware. For online display there is only 1 bit depth that works - 8-bits.


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 7, 2011)

KmH said:


> Facebook is not optimized for displaying photographs. It's a social networking web site, not a photography web site.
> 
> You are spinning your wheels.
> 
> For online display the 1 color space that works the best is - *sRGB *- and then only if the browser used is color-aware. For online display there is only 1 bit depth that works - 8-bits.


 
I know that facebook is not designed for optimising the display of my photographs. Thats my point sadly, because it is showing them in a much better quality than my website. The photos are all srgb and 8bit, I have tried experients with and without icc profile, srgb and rgb. They are always displayed worst on my website, and better on anything but it. 

sigh.


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 7, 2011)

http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/test.jpg


----------



## The_Traveler (May 8, 2011)

*stored on photobucket*

Saved as jpeg without being converted to sRGB then stored on photobucket






Converted to sRGB and saved on photobucket






'Save for web' on photobucket







*stored on Imageshack*

RGB






converted to sRGB and saved as JPG







'save for web'


----------



## KmH (May 8, 2011)

David Mccarthy Media said:


> http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/test.jpg


First why are you using the oddball - Apple RGB?

Second, apparently you don't understand what color space is all about, or the basics of color management. Do you understand that each color spaces color gamut varies. Color space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Visit www.cambridgeincolor.com click on the tutorials tab, and scroll down to the section on "Color Management".


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 8, 2011)

I took all those photos and put them on my website. they look totally different I think. they look a lot more saturated from your image shack account. no?

test | David McCarthy Media CT freelance photographer journalist and artist


----------



## TheBiles (May 8, 2011)

Not sure if it's been stated, but you can upload .TIFs to Flickr with the desktop uploader.  

Sent from my HTC Glacier


----------



## David Mccarthy Media (May 9, 2011)

I just figured something else out with the help of my roommate who is a web programmer. When the website has a black background the image quality is sacraficed, when the website has a white background the image is at full quality, reguardless of a sRGB conversion. 

http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/website white.jpg

http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/website black.jpg

Can anyone see this? I have tested it on several monitors and it only seems to be happening on my main editing monitor sadly.


----------



## V.W.Singer (Sep 20, 2011)

David Mccarthy Media said:


> I have been researching this night and day for months now. I have contacted many website support specialists (many of who can not even view a difference between the photos) with out any luck of fixing this problem. I think it takes a photographers eye to see the difference. I have a website through wordpress, David McCarthy Media. I typically resize my photos to max 600 w/h and save as high quality jpeg. When I view them on my website the contrast, sharpness, and vibrancy is lost. I have toggled between seeing the same photo off the web, in a blank web browser window, and using windows picture viewer. The website to having it just in a browser is a drastic difference, then the browser to viewing it on my pc is a night an day difference. I am just looking to have my photos viewed at their highest quality. The website takes my photos and makes them look like point and shoot snap shots, and its starting to make my blood boil because I can not get to the root of this problem.I have tried saving the photo in every possible way and uploading them. Its always the same thing. My roommate is a web programmer and her can not understand it himself. His explanation is that the browsers are making the photos lighter. Can anyone help?David


 Have you tried setting uploading (good) images to your server and then creating a simple html page with direct links to them?This should at least eliminate any question of the images being affected by image handling scripts.If wordpress.com doesn't allow that, I'd be happy to try it on my server. Just send me an image. (watermark it if you like).


----------



## KmH (Sep 20, 2011)

You're about 4 months late with your help.


----------



## V.W.Singer (Sep 20, 2011)

KmH said:


> You're about 4 months late with your help.


 Better late than never Besides, I just joined today. And, I must admit, at a glance I misread the posting date, thinking it was dd/mm/yyyy.


----------

