Not happy with resized Image Quality, what can we do? [Sitemap]

pengrus

Aug-08-2005, 07:57 AM

I am a new Pro Account Trial User.

I was all ready to move to smugmug until I uploaded some wedding pictures.

The resized pictures have some severe artifacts in many pictures. Give you one example:

1. http://peng.smugmug.com/gallery/716051/11/31376611/Large
Notice the finger with the ring?

2. http://peng.smugmug.com/gallery/716051/11/31376596/Large
Notice the arm of the lady on the right?

When I view the pictures on my computer, it does not show the artifact at all. Could you please tell me if this is due to OVER-Sharpen or UNDER-sharpen of smugmug? Probably OVER-Sharpen, right?

Here is what I used for taking these pictures:
Canon 20D Digital
ISO 800
Canon 50/1.4
Parameter Settings:
JPEG (L/fine)
Contrast: 0
Sharpness: 2
Saturation: 2
Color Tone: 0

I know there is no use to complain how smugmug resize and sharpen. But maybe there is a setting in my camera that I can adjust higher or lower to accomodate smumug's resizing and sharpenning?

Could anyone who is familiar with Canon 20D or experienced photographer can tell me based on the picture above if I should adjust the Sharpness setting in my camera lower or higher to get the best resized image quality on smugmug?

Thank you!
Sean

Andy

Aug-08-2005, 08:02 AM

i don't see the probs you are referring to. smugmug must apply some sharpening to -L images, else they get complaints that images look "soft"

you should apply less sharpening in your post-processing routine.

cheers

andy

pengrus

Aug-08-2005, 08:06 AM

Andy

Aug-08-2005, 08:25 AM

Andy,

Thanks for your reply. You do not see any unclear edges in the two pictures?

Even your blinking eye avatar is sharp and clear compared to my posted pictures. :):

I have no post processing besides the level adjustment, then I upload the JPEGs to smugmug. So the only sharpeness adjustment in in camera (@ 2) to the Large Fine JPEG.

Emm, please take another look at the picture 2, the bottom edge of the older lady's arm - what caused that?

turn your in-camera sharpening down then...
i do not see what you are seeing on the lady's arm. i'm using i.e. on a pc right now, calibrated 19" monitor.

looks good!

grannyrobin

Aug-08-2005, 09:12 AM

Andy,

Thanks for your reply. You do not see any unclear edges in the two pictures?

Even your blinking eye avatar is sharp and clear compared to my posted pictures. :):

I have no post processing besides the level adjustment, then I upload the JPEGs to smugmug. So the only sharpeness adjustment in in camera (@ 2) to the Large Fine JPEG.

Emm, please take another look at the picture 2, the bottom edge of the older lady's arm - what caused that? I don't see any unclear edges. I don't see anything other than photos; crisp, clear photos.

I'm using a PC, Firefox, an LCD monitor.

Just in case you cared to hear another viewer's experiences...
-Robin

pengrus

Aug-08-2005, 09:36 AM

Thanks for your feedback...

Emmm, that makes it challenging as I see it and others don't.

Is it because of my monitor? I viewed them on my laptop and my LCD with desktop. Both show the same problem....

delenca

Aug-08-2005, 10:59 AM

This is an issue that's been the source of much debate at smugmug. I too have found that the thumbnails (S, M and L) are often too oversharpened and compressed at Smugmug, leading to the formation of jpg artifacts like haloes and jaggies.
For instance, here's a couple of threads - Chris and others at Smugmug are very straightforward about why they have chosen the levels of compression (for speed) and sharpening (b/c apparently people complain more about softness than oversharpening artifacts): http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=14404&page=2&highlight=sharpening
http://dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=5366

The bottom line is that these jaggies and haloes are more visible on some monitors that others but they are there and can be obvious depending on your monitor (for me, I saw ugly jaggies around the eyes). Right now Smugmug does not let you set your level of sharpening so your options are: (1) live with it until (and if) smugmug ever allows you to control the amount of sharpening; (2) use one of the workarounds mentioned in the other threads; or (3) consider a different host. I ended up deciding on ImageEvent.com instead. They allow you to choose your own level of sharpening and they don't compress the thumbnails as much. It's too bad because Smugmug seems like a good host and the customer support is very responsive. I'm keeping an eye on this forum to see what/if Smugmug does about this issue.

Good luck,
Alex

pengrus

Aug-08-2005, 11:49 AM

Andy

Aug-08-2005, 11:57 AM

Thanks Alex. I read both posts.

At this point, I believe it is not a sharpness issue, since you can cope with smugmug's approach. I believe it is compression issue.

For 800 pixel large photo, the size is only 60-70KB? That is way too low even considering removing the ICC data.

The quality problem I referred to now is clearly caused by a poor compression.

I ran a digital photography forum with over 8000 members. And our average picture size for 700 pixel picture is 120-150KB.

Can we get some input from Smugmug team on the compression?

Thanks!
pengrus, i'm a pro account holder and i can tell you that i wouldn't want my customers to wait for a 150kb images - and smugmug is catering to millions of viewers here - they know what the byteload threshold is for page views before customers may say "ugh - too slow!"

i've been with smugmug since nearly the beginning of time - and i nor my clients have ever had an issue with compression.

pengrus

Aug-08-2005, 12:02 PM

pengrus, i'm a pro account holder and i can tell you that i wouldn't want my customers to wait for a 150kb images - and smugmug is catering to millions of viewers here - they know what the byteload threshold is for page views before customers may say "ugh - too slow!"

i've been with smugmug since nearly the beginning of time - and i nor my clients have ever had an issue with compression.
Andy,

I think for the picture with 800 pixel on the longest side, the size has to be at least 120-150 KB or it will have some problems that Alex and I were describing.

What is your smugmug link? Can I take a look to compare?

Thanks!

Andy

Aug-08-2005, 12:25 PM

Andy,

I think for the picture with 800 pixel on the longest side, the size has to be at least 120-150 KB or it will have some problems that Alex and I were describing.

What is your smugmug link? Can I take a look to compare?

Thanks!

click on my avatar you'll find out everything you need.

cheers

Barb

Aug-08-2005, 12:42 PM

I am a new Pro Account Trial User.

I was all ready to move to smugmug until I uploaded some wedding pictures.

The resized pictures have some severe artifacts in many pictures. Give you one example:

Sean,

Just thought I'd jump in and say that I do not see the problems with your photos either.

PC-Firefox-WinXP

Can also check on my Mac when I get home. But from here, they look fine :) Just another opinion ...

Matthew Saville

Aug-08-2005, 03:36 PM

For what it's worth Andy, I'd definitely vote to bump up the JPG quality one or two (or three) "levels". But maybe, ONLY for small / medium thumbs? Here's my pitch: As far as file size goes they're relatively miniscule anyways. Add to this the fact that we are as of semi-recently allowed to turn "L" images off. Are many other pros doing this? I do, because "PROOF" works fine when you're selling portraits but it really shoots yourself in the foot when you're trying to showcase artwork that nobody paid you to get up at 5:00 AM to capture.

This is why I think medium / small thumbs could get a little nicer. Wouldn't you, if you're trying to buy a 20x30" print and all you get to see is a tiny, 600x400 pixel image to vouch for quality?

Please at least say that you understand where I'm coming from here,
-Matt-

Andy

Aug-08-2005, 03:39 PM

For what it's worth Andy, I'd definitely vote to bump up the JPG quality one or two (or three) "levels". But maybe, ONLY for medium thumbs? Here's my pitch: As far as file size goes they're relatively miniscule anyways. Add to this the fact that we are allowed to turn "L" images off. Are many other pros doing this? I do, because "PROOF" works fine when you're selling portraits but it's really shooting yourself in the foot when you're trying to showcase artwork that nobody paid you to get up at 5:00 AM to capture. This is why I think medium / small thumbs could get a little nicer. Wouldn't you, if you're trying to buy a 20x30" print and all you get to see is a tiny, 600x400 pixel image to vouch for quality?

Please at least say that you understand where I'm coming from here,
-Matt-

of course, i understand. but i do not agree. i think the quality of the -M and -L images are great, enough for me to entice plenty of folks to buy my images, license them for corporate use, buy giant prints, and more. i also allow larges though....

Matthew Saville

Aug-08-2005, 03:49 PM

of course, i understand. but i do not agree. i think the quality of the -M and -L images are great, enough for me to entice plenty of folks to buy my images, license them for corporate use, buy giant prints, and more. i also allow larges though.... You ARE right as well, it's just the perfectionist inside who worries about all the details, details that most every fan / client is probably overlooking. Go figure!

-Matt-

pengrus

Aug-09-2005, 05:09 AM

I am really surprised by the standard that some photographers have here.

My wife does not even know how to control the camera dial, she asked me over the phone yesterday, "do you think we lost the quality after uploading to smugmug?". I've used several imagehosting sites, and we never experienced this issue before.

It is not that you cope with the poor compression. It is either you improve and listen to your outspoken customers, or you lose the business and lose your reputation.

We are not trying to be perfectionists. But when you downsize the picture, it got to be crisp and clear. I have browsed a few wedding albums here at smugmug, most of the low light shots do not look good. Other shots like Macro or landscape is not as noticeable.

dave_bass5

Aug-15-2005, 03:03 AM

Hi all.
this is my first post so please bare with me.
i have just started to notice this to here is an example. look at the wording on the balloon on the right
http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/32229599-L.jpg

This is fine on the original.
Can some one give me a giude to what size i should use to avoid this or would that not work as i would need 3 different sizes?
I do understand why smugmug are doing it i just wanted to see if there is a work around
thanks for any help

Dave.

pengrus

Aug-22-2005, 04:24 PM

Did you remove that image, Dave? How large is that L image?

DavidTO

Aug-22-2005, 04:51 PM

Andy,

I think for the picture with 800 pixel on the longest side, the size has to be at least 120-150 KB or it will have some problems that Alex and I were describing.

What is your smugmug link? Can I take a look to compare?

Thanks!

Andy's on vacation. Click on his name above his avatar and in the pull down you'll see the option to visit his homepage.

quagmire321

Aug-22-2005, 05:11 PM

I am a new Pro Account Trial User.

I was all ready to move to smugmug until I uploaded some wedding pictures.

When I view the pictures on my computer, it does not show the artifact at all. Could you please tell me if this is due to OVER-Sharpen or UNDER-sharpen of smugmug? Probably OVER-Sharpen, right?

I know there is no use to complain how smugmug resize and sharpen. But maybe there is a setting in my camera that I can adjust higher or lower to accomodate smumug's resizing and sharpenning?

Could anyone who is familiar with Canon 20D or experienced photographer can tell me based on the picture above if I should adjust the Sharpness setting in my camera lower or higher to get the best resized image quality on smugmug?

Thank you!
Sean Sean,

I did not look look at your shots but I started a topic on this quite awhile back about this issue and custom watermarking.

It's here : Message (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=14404&page=1&pp=10)

I posted some details on how I 'overcome' this particular problem there.

Have fun! :):

pengrus

Aug-22-2005, 05:20 PM

[QUOTE=quagmire321]

Thanks for the link. I read and responded to that thread. So what is the work around for the poor compression?

quagmire321

Aug-22-2005, 11:17 PM

[QUOTE=quagmire321]

Thanks for the link. I read and responded to that thread. So what is the work around for the poor compression?
No real workaround if you want to show your shots at their best and be able to allow clients to order prints from the same shots. At the moment, you will have to live with what Smugmug does (yes, I don't like it).

Please do consider for a moment, selling prints is just one of the reasons for having an account on Smugmug.

dave_bass5

Aug-23-2005, 01:18 AM

Did you remove that image, Dave? How large is that L image? yes i did, sorry.
I have uploaded the gallery again but resized my pics to 800 along the long edge. after reading a few threads here i figured i cant do anything about it apart from make my images smaller myself.
This seems to sort it out but any of the smaller sizes re introduces the artifacts again. all i want is for people open the page and see the full size image as default.
I guess i will then have to have another (hidden?) gallery that has the full size images for when i want to get prints made.

dave.

(http://davepearce.smugmug.com/photos/32279353-L.jpg)

unsavory

Aug-26-2005, 01:19 PM

of course, i understand. but i do not agree. i think the quality of the -M and -L images are great, enough for me to entice plenty of folks to buy my images, license them for corporate use, buy giant prints, and more. i also allow larges though....
Andy, I am sorry but I must disagree with you. There is a very significant compression issue with smugmug. The reason I am reading this is because I noticed it with many of my images so decided to search the forums to see if I was the only one with this issue.

Your photo is a prime example of a overcompressed image: http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/634937/2/18247733

There is significat JPEG artifacts around the hand and the bird. This is not the only photo. There are many others in your gallery with the same problem. Great gallery by the way!

Here is another example from my own gallery of an image that has been waaay overcompressed: http://unsavory.smugmug.com/gallery/731178/3/33556941

You will notice there is very noticable significant artifacts on her face, arms and especially legs. View the Original version however, and it is clear and crisp.

Smugmug may be applying such high compression to save bandwidth. But what I actually end up doing, is linking to the larger photos directly because I notice the medium and small versions suffer much more than the large one does. This is costing them bandwidth.

I too have been with Smugmug for a while. But I am considering making the jump because I can't stand viewing my photos so mutilated any longer. I take photos with a great camera and the best glass I can afford so I can get clear crisp photos. None of that matters if my image hoster is going to compress them to the point where they are no longer tolerable.

All those images in that link were all pre-sized in Photoshop to 1024x768 and saved as JPG lvl 10 by the way.

Mike Lane

Aug-26-2005, 02:52 PM

Andy, I am sorry but I must disagree with you. There is a very significant compression issue with smugmug. The reason I am reading this is because I noticed it with many of my images so decided to search the forums to see if I was the only one with this issue.

Your photo is a prime example of a overcompressed image: http://www.moonriverphotography.com/gallery/634937/2/18247733

There is significat JPEG artifacts around the hand and the bird. This is not the only photo. There are many others in your gallery with the same problem. Great gallery by the way!

Here is another example from my own gallery of an image that has been waaay overcompressed: http://unsavory.smugmug.com/gallery/731178/3/33556941

You will notice there is very noticable significant artifacts on her face, arms and especially legs. View the Original version however, and it is clear and crisp.

Smugmug may be applying such high compression to save bandwidth. But what I actually end up doing, is linking to the larger photos directly because I notice the medium and small versions suffer much more than the large one does. This is costing them bandwidth.

I too have been with Smugmug for a while. But I am considering making the jump because I can't stand viewing my photos so mutilated any longer. I take photos with a great camera and the best glass I can afford so I can get clear crisp photos. None of that matters if my image hoster is going to compress them to the point where they are no longer tolerable.

All those images in that link were all pre-sized in Photoshop to 1024x768 and saved as JPG lvl 10 by the way.
I've got to tell you that I was huge on this issue when I first noticed it. Check out http://www.mikelanephotography.com/photos/19619551-L.jpg. But there's a point when you have to step back and realize who your audience is. I don't know for certain, but my guess is that Andy's audience is much wider than just about anyone else's on smugmug. I suspect that he sells to people who range from casual photography admirers to hard core image professionals and he does it with previews on smugmug.

Here's my point, and it was a difficult thing for me to come to terms with: The vast majority of people aren't nearly as concerned with the bits of artifacts in your smugmug photos that drive you up the wall. They just plain aren't. Yes, there may be some who, like you and me, get their noses up to the screen in Andy's picture of the seagull taking some bread and don't like the artifacts that they see. By and large, those people know too that the prints probably won't have such an issue.

So, if the on screen artifacting isn't drastically affecting the viewer experience, what is? The speed of that experience. The internet is more like other mediums than some give it credit for. On TV if a channel's signal goes out for 3 or 4 seconds what do you do? Grab the remote and change the channel. If a website is taking forever to load what do you do? Move on to another website. Smugmug only has so much bandwidth and given that they're a photo sharing site who allows original sized images (often at 3 or 4 MB a piece) they are in a particularly unique situation that requires them to make certain sacrifices.

We all know this and we all want the best picture quality. There is a certain satisfaction in high quality pictures but those high quality pictures will noticeably degrade the quality of the surfing experience on smugmug. The contention is that you will lose more customers if they have to wait than if you have some hard-to-see artifacting in your smaller than original sized images.

Consider this as well. Bandwidth comes at a steep price and that price will be pushed down to the consumer (which is us, the smugmug subscribers). I for one am not interested in paying hundreds of dollars more per year just so I can rid my pictures of some artifacting. Maybe that's just me though.

Anyhow, this is all my two cents, and this is after some time to think about the whole picture. This just isn't as big of a deal as some (including myself) have made it out to be. The much bigger deal is the overal surfing experience that your customers will have and little changes in the amount of artifacting in each picture has massive affects on the speed that everyone's pages load.

behr655

Aug-26-2005, 04:36 PM

I've also been having the same problem with my most recently up-loaded albums. My older albums still look fine. This seemed to coincide with the changes made recently on Smugmug. Maybe they've changed how they sharpen and compress.

Bear

Andy

Aug-26-2005, 04:51 PM

All those images in that link were all pre-sized in Photoshop to 1024x768 and saved as JPG lvl 10 by the way.

:wave hiya unsavory, nice to see you.

since you resize, why not just resize to 800px max and allow originals? downsample as you see fit :D

Andy

Aug-26-2005, 04:54 PM

Here's my point, and it was a difficult thing for me to come to terms with: The vast majority of people aren't nearly as concerned with the bits of artifacts in your smugmug photos that drive you up the wall. They just plain aren't. Yes, there may be some who, like you and me, get their noses up to the screen in Andy's picture of the seagull taking some bread and don't like the artifacts that they see. By and large, those people know too that the prints probably won't have such an issue.

:nod far and away the majority of stuff i've sold and licensed has been from shots just like the seagull, folks look at it on screen, then i sell a license for 500 prints :D

you're so right, mike - the average buyer understands that the web version is nowhere near the print version!

Mike Lane

Aug-26-2005, 05:14 PM

:nod far and away the majority of stuff i've sold and licensed has been from shots just like the seagull, folks look at it on screen, then i sell a license for 500 prints :D

you're so right, mike - the average buyer understands that the web version is nowhere near the print version!
I was so heated the first time I saw those artifacts. I was putting posts in here (probably this very thread) emailing the smugmug help, you name it. But the more I think about it the more I realize that they are an acceptable tradeoff and really the only person that it really bothers is me.

I know people are upset about this issue just as I was. This exact same thread is getting repeated over and over again, people are threatening to leave smugmug all kinds of things. People have a right to be mad, their photos are their babies almost. Sometimes I think people (including myself) just need to look at the bigger picture.

They are trying to adjust the compression by trying to figure out a way to dynamically choose which images get what level of compression. With JPG compression, images made up of lots of changes from pixel to pixel will not compress easily but artifacts will not show up as well so you need to and can compress them more and images with broad areas of colors compress easily and also show artifacts a lot. The problem is determining if a picture is of a grassy field and can stand more compression or if it is a picture of a girl against a blue sky and doesn't need as much compression.

Just know that this is a topic that is on the SM guys' minds. They don't want to have to make us just live with something we don't like if they don't have to.

unsavory

Aug-26-2005, 11:03 PM

:wave hiya unsavory, nice to see you.

since you resize, why not just resize to 800px max and allow originals? downsample as you see fit :D
Hi Andy, nice to see you too. The reason is because 800 is too small. If they had this same option on 1024 I would be much more willing to live with it. The reason I was downsizing to 1024 by the way, is I figured if I downsized the image myself the compression would be better than if Smugmug had downsized it from a 3096 x whatever photo because they wouldn't need to compress it as much. I turned out to be wrong. :): They still apply their bad compression to a 1024 image.

I would absolutely love if Smugmug gave us the option to pay extra for images that weren't compressed so much. In other words if a JPEG quality 10 photo takes 60% more disk space and bandwidth, I would be willing to pay 60% more. Heck I would pay double what I am paying now. So the perfect compromise would be to allow that option to those that want it, and keep their current pricing for those that don't.

That's my 2 cents.

Mike Lane

Aug-26-2005, 11:32 PM

I would absolutely love if Smugmug gave us the option to pay extra for images that weren't compressed so much. In other words if a JPEG quality 10 photo takes 60% more disk space and bandwidth, I would be willing to pay 60% more. Heck I would pay double what I am paying now. So the perfect compromise would be to allow that option to those that want it, and keep their current pricing for those that don't.

That's my 2 cents.
Increasing the bandwidth requirements for some slows down the performance for all. It's not quite as easy as that.

Matthew Saville

Aug-27-2005, 12:36 AM

Increasing the bandwidth requirements for some slows down the performance for all. It's not quite as easy as that. I contemplated the "pay for extra quality" too, actually. For the most part I'm fine with smugmug's compression quality, but I have a handful of photos that due to their nature just artifact like crazy. It would be nice to just have an "edit photo" button that would refresh the thumbnail with some sort of "delicate image" considerations taken in...

But I think that by-and-large, simply upping the qualiy of every single S, M & L image on one's website would greatly increase lag-time. All you DSL etc. users have NO idea how slow these images are loading for the 56k-ers out there. My girlfriend just recently visited her granparents, and she wanted to show them my photos but they basically had to stop after a while because I just have so many photos that it would have taken literally all day and all night. Now with my DSL connection I can show someone practially my whole portfolio / exploits galleries in 30-45 minutes. I know more and more people are converting to faster internet connections, but I think it's wise that smugmug is not just leaving the 56k-ers in the dust. If a McAskill (sp?) wants to chime in and give us some stats on the ratio of cable-to-dialup users on Smugug, I bet we'd be surprised.

I never thought I'd find myself saying this, but other than maybe, maybe, MAYBE adding a single image "refresh thumbnail" button, we definitely must leave image compression quality the way it is right now.

If you REALLY want higher quality images, then use a Photoshop action to take your high-res photos and make them 700-800 pixels, run your best shot of USM, and upload those photos into your original gallery. Disable printing for this gallery. Move the high-res photos to a new, "all thumbs" gallery, disable larges and title the gallery "such-and-such event/genre PRINTS gallery" and post a link to it in the original gallery. In my opinion that is a very professional means of displaying your photos, and if you want, it wouldn't hurt to explain to people why you've set things up this way. I bet you'd get lots of comments from people saying that your 800 pixel "high quality thumbnails" load very slowly!

Take care,
-Matt-

unsavory

Aug-27-2005, 12:07 PM

pumpkin

Aug-27-2005, 12:40 PM

I understand what you are saying. But this is why I think we should have a choice. Because I couldn't care less about those that have 56K internet connections. Every single friend and family member that I know, all have DSL or Cable. I'm not trying to run a professional gallery for customers. I just want to see my photos clean and sharp without artifacts in them. Why is this such a hard thing to ask?

Choice, choice, choice. Customers like choices. Something Smugmug does a terrific job at, with exception to this issue.

While I can see the artifacts in my resized images, I don't particularly mind. But I don't think that my not minding is a good reason to tell you not to mind. If indeed everyone is as happy with their jpeg compression as they say they are, then adding the capability to allow certain pros to increase it could possibly even be amortized across the entire range of smugmug customers and the change would be nearly imperceptible (a bit like how the "infinite" storage gets amortized out.) A pro acknowledges that decreasing compression increases size (who doesn't?) and would take longer to download. But they are grown adults and know who their audience is, and will generally make an informed decision about load times if they value image quality enough to want to compromise them.

I don't know how smugmug maintains its huge database of photos, but I can't think of any scheme by which this would be a difficult change, technically. The argument against it, that I've heard, is that people will go complaining to smugmug if the load times are too slow. I wouldn't think so, since most people will think they're visiting the photographer's site, not the photographer's site hosted on smugmug. They will tell whomever they think is the owner of the site (in this case the pro photographer) that they think their site is too slow. If the pro gets too many of these emails, he/she might consider increasing the compression again. But allowing this change doesn't seem like such a big deal.

All this arguing against the change seems, in some cases, inspired by cognitive dissonance... but I may just be reading things into it that I shouldn't :)

Just my 0.02 eurocents :)

Dan

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 12:48 PM

Choice, choice, choice. Customers like choices. Something Smugmug does a terrific job at, with exception to this issue.

ok - :D smugmug allows you the choice of showing your original images :deal

pumpkin

Aug-27-2005, 01:00 PM

ok - :D smugmug allows you the choice of showing your original images :deal

But that also means that people can take those images and print them themselves. The other option is to upload a <800px image and then you necessarily lose many of the benefits of a pro account (mostly being able to sell photos online for a profit.) Or the third option is to just accept the artifacts, which doesn't seem like a very good one either.

Isn't it like buying a new car and finding a scratch on it? You know it won't affect the car's performance in the least, but it still bugs you if you know about it and see it every time you use the car.

unsavory

Aug-27-2005, 01:04 PM

ok - :D smugmug allows you the choice of showing your original images :deal
Andy let's not get into that one again :):. The interface for viewing your original images is obviously put in place to discourage just that, since in order to view the original one must click on the link and open a new window, then close the window before selecting the next thumb only to repeat the whole process again. VERY inconvenient.

The whole point of wanting crisp photos is so that people browsing my galleries will see my photos the way I meant to have them seen. I didn't spend hours post-processing my photos, getting them just the right sharpness, sizing to 1024, etc only to have them viewed all jagged and fugly. I really don't think this is too much to ask. Like I said, I would be willing to pay a premium for this.

By the way, I completely agree with what pumpkin has said about the affect of allowing this option to certain pro users being amortized across their entire user base.

kwalsh

Aug-27-2005, 01:06 PM

Choice, choice, choice. Customers like choices. Something Smugmug does a terrific job at, with exception to this issue. Actually, the problem is really much simpler than this. The problem is that smugmug uses a constant quantization matrix (i.e. quality setting) for making the thumbnails. Now the smugmug guys are real cool and all, but for people as tech savy as they are this really is patently stupid. (To be fair, they are really really busy putting out all sorts of cool customization features so cutting some slack is in order :):).

What they should be doing if they are interested in good image quality and fast downloads is targeting a constant thumbnail file *size*. This is what pretty much every digital camera on the market does. Take a picture of static on your TV or a clear blue sky and the file sizes come our remarkably similar in size. This of course seems impossible since there are vastly different amounts of information in each image, until you look at the JPEG headers and you'll discover the quatization matrix for each image is drastically different - the blue sky less lossy (less rounding in the quantization matrix) and the static more lossy (more rounding).

So the general idea is to adjust the quantization matix (quality setting) until you get the desired size. This results in much nicer looking photos. Why? Well, in very complicated images that require lower quality settings to meet the target file size the artifacts are less visible - the complicated scene information hides them. In images with large uniform patches at the lower quality settings artifacts would show up like mad at the edges (sky for example) - but large uniform patches compress real well so the file can have a much higher quailty setting and still meet the target file size.

So far most of the example images posted in threads like these by people who feel their photos were mauled by the compression have had large uniform areas in them (sky) and the artifacts are all visible in the sky. And if you look at the file *sizes* they are way smaller than they need to be. Here's an example from one of the few non-private galleries I've got up at the moment:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/615329/1/29198141/Large

There are some scary artifacts around the lightning. This image has lots of uniform space and had noise reduction applied to it, as a result it compresses well. The large image is only 30KB!!!! Unfortunately from the clouds to the bolt is a big step function and artifacts show up real nice in that area. A higher quality setting would remove the artifacts and still keep the image at a managable size.

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/615329/1/26081308/Large

Now this image is 70KB, more than *twice* the size of the first!!! It's contrasty and there are few uniform areas. You can pick up a little artifacting where the Sierra's meet the sky, but its not objectionable, and everywhere else in the image the artifacts are hidden by other scene information (e.g. the top of the dunes is a very sharp edge, but the artifacting is much harder to see than in the lightning image).

Long story short, the current constant quality settings are suboptimal for both image quality and download time. The quality should be set adaptively to achive a target file size for the thumbnails. This is a back end change for the smugmug folks (we love you, by the way, it's just tough love :D) and wouldn't require any messy user interface changes. It would probably make the fanatical pixel peepers a lot happier about the vast majority of the images they don't like and would keep the 56Ker's out in their mud huts using smoke signals to connect to the internet happy as well.

Anywho, this has come up before, I think even Baldy mentioned they were looking into it. I sure hope they do. It will result in both good bandwidth performance and image quality. It can't be that hard to do if your camera is doing it at 5 fps. I think the problem is many of the command line processing tools out there don't have a target file size option so they might need to wrap a script around whatever they are using to do it right, and as we know it isn't like they're sitting on their duffs drinking beer at the moment.

Oh, and I think I mentioned this on another thread, if you are truely disturbed by what are in fact pretty minor artifacts I strongly suggest you don't visit your clients or family and friends who are viewing your works of art on crappy uncalibrated monitors. The drastic color shifts are *way* more objectionable.

Ken

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 01:21 PM

But that also means that people can take those images and print them themselves.

the poster said his constituency was friends and family.

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 01:23 PM

Like I said, I would be willing to pay a premium for this.

i wonder how many others would? i'll make sure this gets consideration ... thanks so much for your input and suggestions!

pumpkin

Aug-27-2005, 02:15 PM

Actually, the problem is really much simpler than this. The problem is that smugmug uses a constant quantization matrix (i.e. quality setting) for making the thumbnails. Now the smugmug guys are real cool and all, but for people as tech savy as they are this really is patently stupid. (To be fair, they are really really busy putting out all sorts of cool customization features so cutting some slack is in order :):).

What they should be doing if they are interested in good image quality and fast downloads is targeting a constant thumbnail file *size*. This is what pretty much every digital camera on the market does. Take a picture of static on your TV or a clear blue sky and the file sizes come our remarkably similar in size. This of course seems impossible since there are vastly different amounts of information in each image, until you look at the JPEG headers and you'll discover the quatization matrix for each image is drastically different - the blue sky less lossy (less rounding in the quantization matrix) and the static more lossy (more rounding).

So the general idea is to adjust the quantization matix (quality setting) until you get the desired size. This results in much nicer looking photos. Why? Well, in very complicated images that require lower quality settings to meet the target file size the artifacts are less visible - the complicated scene information hides them. In images with large uniform patches at the lower quality settings artifacts would show up like mad at the edges (sky for example) - but large uniform patches compress real well so the file can have a much higher quailty setting and still meet the target file size.

So far most of the example images posted in threads like these by people who feel their photos were mauled by the compression have had large uniform areas in them (sky) and the artifacts are all visible in the sky. And if you look at the file *sizes* they are way smaller than they need to be. Here's an example from one of the few non-private galleries I've got up at the moment:

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/615329/1/29198141/Large

There are some scary artifacts around the lightning. This image has lots of uniform space and had noise reduction applied to it, as a result it compresses well. The large image is only 30KB!!!! Unfortunately from the clouds to the bolt is a big step function and artifacts show up real nice in that area. A higher quality setting would remove the artifacts and still keep the image at a managable size.

http://www.kenandchristine.com/gallery/615329/1/26081308/Large

Now this image is 70KB, more than *twice* the size of the first!!! It's contrasty and there are few uniform areas. You can pick up a little artifacting where the Sierra's meet the sky, but its not objectionable, and everywhere else in the image the artifacts are hidden by other scene information (e.g. the top of the dunes is a very sharp edge, but the artifacting is much harder to see than in the lightning image).

Long story short, the current constant quality settings are suboptimal for both image quality and download time. The quality should be set adaptively to achive a target file size for the thumbnails. This is a back end change for the smugmug folks (we love you, by the way, it's just tough love :D) and wouldn't require any messy user interface changes. It would probably make the fanatical pixel peepers a lot happier about the vast majority of the images they don't like and would keep the 56Ker's out in their mud huts using smoke signals to connect to the internet happy as well.

Anywho, this has come up before, I think even Baldy mentioned they were looking into it. I sure hope they do. It will result in both good bandwidth performance and image quality. It can't be that hard to do if your camera is doing it at 5 fps. I think the problem is many of the command line processing tools out there don't have a target file size option so they might need to wrap a script around whatever they are using to do it right, and as we know it isn't like they're sitting on their duffs drinking beer at the moment.

Oh, and I think I mentioned this on another thread, if you are truely disturbed by what are in fact pretty minor artifacts I strongly suggest you don't visit your clients or family and friends who are viewing your works of art on crappy uncalibrated monitors. The drastic color shifts are *way* more objectionable.

Ken

an excellent suggestion! :) whee

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 04:44 PM

Mike Lane

Aug-27-2005, 04:46 PM

unsavory

Aug-27-2005, 04:56 PM

The last one was made by smugmug, the first one was compressed in half, and the middle one was made by you. But it took a good long time of nose to the screen staring to get it.

It's the pixelation around the necklace/sky and shirt/water border that gives it away.
Actually it doesn't take that much nose to the screen to see the differences. The middle one is far sharper than either of the other two. And the last one has lost so much detail that the texture of the girls skin is completely gone. It almost looks like it is slightly out of focus.

unsavory

Aug-27-2005, 05:05 PM

And for another test, how about this. Notice how in one of the photos, the girls face almost looks blotchy because of the pixelation. The other is crystal clear and sharp. Notice I am not even mentioning the pixelation between the high contrast areas. I am speaking of the model's face texture directly.

http://unsavory.smugmug.com/photos/33722491-M.jpg

http://unsavory.smugmug.com/photos/33730543-M.jpg

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 05:12 PM

And for another test, how about this. Notice how in one of the photos, the girls face almost looks blotchy because of the pixelation. The other is crystal clear and sharp. Notice I am not even mentioning the pixelation between the high contrast areas. I am speaking of the model's face texture directly.

why are you showing -M? i mean, c'mon - with most any camera today, you're talking a huge amount of difference between a -M size and the original :D

Mike Lane

Aug-27-2005, 05:13 PM

why are you showing -M? i mean, c'mon - with most any camera today, you're talking a huge amount of difference between a -M size and the original :lol3 Good point, can we see the L's?

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 05:15 PM

Actually it doesn't take that much nose to the screen to see the differences. The middle one is far sharper than either of the other two. And the last one has lost so much detail that the texture of the girls skin is completely gone. It almost looks like it is slightly out of focus.

ahh now you get to a whole 'nother can of tomatoes: sharpening! more later :D

unsavory

Aug-27-2005, 05:39 PM

The point here was to show you the difference between a properly re-sized and compressed image versus how Smugmug does it. Hence the M size. But for your satisfaction:

http://unsavory.smugmug.com/photos/33735076-L.jpg

http://unsavory.smugmug.com/photos/33735078-L.jpg

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 05:43 PM

...properly...[/img]

unsavory, what's your workflow? i'd also like to see a shot that you process, full size, and upload to smugmug and then link the -L and also a home-brewed 800px version. thanks!

unsavory

Aug-27-2005, 05:45 PM

unsavory, what's your workflow? i'd also like to see a shot that you process, full size, and upload to smugmug and then link the -L and also a home-brewed 800px version. thanks!
Will do Andy. Unfortunately I am running out to a birthday party right now. So I'll have to pick this up tomorrow. Thanks for taking the time.

Mike Lane

Aug-27-2005, 05:46 PM

The point here was to show you the difference between a properly re-sized and compressed image versus how Smugmug does it. Hence the M size. But for your satisfaction:
I've got to tell you, I really have to look hard to see a difference in the L photos. Do you really think it'd be a issue if a potential customer saw the smugmug compressed version? I know I'm coming off as a part of "them" a little bit here, but really, honestly (and maybe it's just me, maybe my eye isn't dicerning enough) I have to get right up to the screen and switch back and forth between pictures to see if I can tell if any pixels change places.

Am I just not being ciritical enough?

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 05:53 PM

Am I just not being ciritical enough?

a big part of this whole issue is that photographers will always notice this stuff more than buyers :deal

Mike Lane

Aug-27-2005, 05:56 PM

a big part of this whole issue is that photographers will always notice this stuff more than buyers :deal
That's true and that was a tough thing for me to come to terms with. Of course, maybe it shouldn't have been that tough because I don't sell much of anything in the first place :dunno.

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 06:09 PM

this discussion is fascinating...really... i'm looking forward to your answers :D

three versions of the same shot. all from a canon 1Ds Mark II shot, the full-size jpg is just under 8 megabytes.

which one was made by smugmug, and which was made by me, and finally, which one was made by me and also compressed by half?

(no cheating by looking at the file size!)

resized to 800x533 and compressed to <100kb by me in photoshop:
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/33721460-L.jpg

resized by me in photoshop to 800x533, no compression:
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/33721464-L.jpg

compressed by smugmug to 800x533
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/33721512-L.jpg

so, i've put the answers here. mike you were spot on - and so here are my comments.

the middle shot, to me, seems a bit oversharp - as i've matured as a photographer i feel that not everything needs to cut your skin sharp! some stuff, yeah. i actually prefer the look of the third version, and to unsavory: there are no details lost - this is the original file as i processed it from the 16mpx canon 1Ds Mark II... anyhow, the sharpening thing is such a personal preference that we shouldn't debate that.

my point, that i'm attempting to make, is that i feel that the compression is acceptable for the -L images that i show in my galleries. could it be less compression? sure - and the quality would even go up - but we cannot ignore the tradeoff of file size vs. viewer experience (speed).

fascinating discussion!

Baldy

Aug-27-2005, 07:21 PM

I have the mother of all headaches so won't type much, but that post of kwalsh's is exactly what I was looking for. It makes a lot of sense.

One thing that confuses me is I'm looking at a folder of differnet shots from my 20D, all at the same medium compression setting, and they range from 606k to 1518k depending on the scene I understood kwalsh to say virtually every digital camera puts out a constant size image (he said thumbnail, but we're talking more than thumbs, correct?).

Andy

Aug-27-2005, 07:38 PM

Oh, and I think I mentioned this on another thread, if you are truely disturbed by what are in fact pretty minor artifacts I strongly suggest you don't visit your clients or family and friends who are viewing your works of art on crappy uncalibrated monitors. The drastic color shifts are *way* more objectionable.

Ken

ken, a great post with some excellent food for thought. and your final point is soooooo true - i have seen some folks with multi-thou$and dollar displays and they look like the dog barfed on the screen it's so green. :puke

kwalsh

Aug-28-2005, 11:03 AM

One thing that confuses me is I'm looking at a folder of differnet shots from my 20D, all at the same medium compression setting, and they range from 606k to 1518k depending on the scene I understood kwalsh to say virtually every digital camera puts out a constant size image (he said thumbnail, but we're talking more than thumbs, correct?). *NEWS FLASH FOR KEN*
Beware small number statistics for they shall make you look like a moron! :crazy

So, yeah Baldy you're right on that one. "Virtually every" was strong language for me to use on a survey of 5 cameras. Turns out none of them were from Canon. Canon uses a constant quantization matrix. So, for a larger survey across more manufacturers and cameras:

Canon 10D - Constant
Canon 2is - Constant
Canon G3 - Constant
Canon S70 - Constant
Sony DSC-H1 - Dynamic
Sony DSC-s85 - Dynamic
Sony DSC-L1 - Dynamic
Sony DSC-707 - Dynamic
Nikon 8800 - Dynamic
Nikon 4500 - Dynamic
Nikon D100 - Dynamic
Fuji S3 Pro - Dynamic
Fuji F700 - Dynamic
Minolta Z5 - Constant
Minolta 7Hi - Constant
Olympus C-8080WZ - Dynamic
Olympus E-10 - Dynamic

So, it would appear that for any given manufacturer they've either set compression dynamically or constant across their product line more or less since the dawn of time (there are some old cameras in that list). Dynamic seems to be the more common, but by no means "virtually every". Of course if you take your five samples from Nikon, Sony and Olympus it'll look that way :).

What do you guys use to convert on the back end (if you're comfortable saying)? If it's freeware I'd love to try out some simple scripts to see how easy/hard a target file size scheme is on my own system.

Ken

P.S. Hope your headache is better.

Baldy

Aug-28-2005, 11:20 AM

Y'know, yesterday my head felt like it had been run over by a truck (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=17457). :roflBut I'm good today.

We use Image Magick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php). I talked to Onethumb last night and I think we're pretty open to making the small images (byte-wise) bigger — the ones with the broad areas of solid color — if there's a way to do it without also making the fatty images that don't show artifacts even fatter, sounds like goodness.

kwalsh

Aug-28-2005, 11:33 AM

unsavory

Aug-28-2005, 02:28 PM

I'm baaaaack!:): You didn't really think I would drop this one did you? :D

We use Image Magick (http://www.imagemagick.org/script/index.php). I talked to Onethumb last night and I think we're pretty open to making the small images (byte-wise) bigger — the ones with the broad areas of solid color — if there's a way to do it without also making the fatty images that don't show artifacts even fatter, sounds like goodness.
Woot! I would be very interested in what you guys come up with. You guys are the best.

the middle shot, to me, seems a bit oversharp - as i've matured as a photographer i feel that not everything needs to cut your skin sharp! some stuff, yeah. i actually prefer the look of the third version, and to unsavory: there are no details lost - this is the original file as i processed it from the 16mpx canon 1Ds Mark II... anyhow, the sharpening thing is such a personal preference that we shouldn't debate that.

my point, that i'm attempting to make, is that i feel that the compression is acceptable for the -L images that i show in my galleries. could it be less compression? sure - and the quality would even go up - but we cannot ignore the tradeoff of file size vs. viewer experience (speed).
I have a lot to say here, so here goes. Firstly, when I said lost details I was referring to the Smugmug compressed one. Not the original file you processed. That one is very clear and sharp just as I would expect. It's the Smugmug one that looks soft and out of focus to me. As you've already noted, the sharpness of the photo is a personal preference. And this is precisely the point I am trying to make.

As an artist, I have a specific look I am trying to achieve in my photographs. I shoot in RAW, post-process, color correct, and get it just the right amount of sharpness. When I'm finished, I am happy with my work and ready to show the world. So I upload my photos and Smugmug compresses the images to the point where they are no longer as sharp as I want them.

Now to me, it is completely irrelevant that 90% of people cannot tell the difference. The important thing to me is having my work displayed EXACTLY as I intended it to be. I sometimes show my work to other photographers who CAN tell the difference. And it is a poor reflection of me and my work to have JPEG artifacts in it because it makes my photos look subpar. Not up to snuff. The difference between a clean crisp photo and the Smugmug compressed one is night and day to me.

Take a 5 star chef as an example. She uses the absolute best ingredients, spends hours and hours perfecting her recipes and nit-picks every last detail. Do you think that chef cares that 99% of the people that eat in that restaurant can't tell the difference between a truffle and a mushroom? No. Why? Because she wants to be the best chef in the world. And using subpar ingredients is not going to get her there.

This example is a little extreme because I am not trying to be the best photographer in the world. However, as a photographer I am continually trying to be the best I can be. And it's the small things that make a difference.

Now I know that 98% of Smugmug's customers don't know how to sharpen, compress or size their own photos, and I know that they can't tell the difference anyway. Most people use Smugmug as a snapshot repository. I myself did this for years. So I understand if they make the decision not to cater to the 1% - 5% that CAN actually tell the difference.

But if they are going to attempt to cater to Professionals and offer Pro accounts, they should allow their Pro users to have their photographs displayed EXACTLY as they would like them to be.

All the arguments I have seen in favor of Smugmug on this issue are making excuses for degrading the quality of an artist's work. "The medium image is too small to be a fair comparison." "They allow the ability to view the original." "You can downsize to below 800px and then it won't be compressed." Nevermind the fact that as an artist I don't want my work being displayed at ANY resolution that has horrible compression. It doesn't matter to me that the original is available. I don't want people viewing my work at medium size at all if it isn't going to meet my standards.

Is this so unreasonable? Is it such a big thing to ask that as a pro user I should be able to display my photos the way I want them? I really don't think it is unreasonable.

Or should I as a customer of Smugmug accept that they cannot supply me with a quality photo that meets my standards?

Please don't take all this the wrong way. I love all you guys/gals at Smugmug and think you are doing an excellent job at what you do. I'm just not convinced that you are capable of catering to the customers that have an expectation of having their work displayed exactly as they intended it. Not because you aren't technically capable (because you are), but because of business demands. Perhaps there is a conflict of interests in play here.

Thoughts?

Andy

Aug-28-2005, 02:41 PM

Is this so unreasonable? Is it such a big thing to ask that as a pro user I should be able to display my photos the way I want them? I really don't think it is unreasonable.

depends - for $100 maybe it is? i don't know ...

one of the branches of this discussion a page or two back was, "would you be willing to pay more for the added flexibility of displaying and compressing your way, with you deciding how much, etc...

thanks for the valuable feedback and taking the time to tell us your thoughts and feelings on this subject!

unsavory

Aug-28-2005, 02:56 PM

pumpkin

Aug-29-2005, 01:52 PM

depends - for $100 maybe it is? i don't know ...

one of the branches of this discussion a page or two back was, "would you be willing to pay more for the added flexibility of displaying and compressing your way, with you deciding how much, etc...

thanks for the valuable feedback and taking the time to tell us your thoughts and feelings on this subject!

As I said a few posts back, it probably wouldn't need to be that much more expensive (if more at all.) First of all, it seems that very few people care about the quality difference, so it would only be very few photographers who would ask for the greater quality. The total difference in bandwidth this change would cause would be negligible, if that were the case. Also, as someone said earlier, the compression is most visible with large areas of smooth color, which also tend to be more easily compressible. So if we set a fixed size and not a fixed compression rate on the pictures, that would improve the quality of the ones where the compression is most visible, and not use that more space.

:dunno :clap

I'm sure the smugmug people will come up with something good for this, as always :)

behr655

Aug-29-2005, 02:13 PM

First of all, it seems that very few people care about the quality difference ............<rant>
I don't think you can judge that by the number of people that have posted to this thread.
I think a majority of users of Smugmug use the site for sharing photos with their friends and for linking. I for one am now embarassed to to let my friends see my photos. They look so bad after up-loading to Smugmug. I payed for a service which has now been degraded.
I understand Andy's statement that the originals are un-compressed and that his buyers understand about compressed thumbnails and they can be sure that they will get good files. That does me no good however as I use the site for viewing only.
</rant>

Bear

Andy

Aug-29-2005, 02:43 PM

<rant>
I don't think you can judge that by the number of people that have posted to this thread.
I think a majority of users of Smugmug use the site for sharing photos with their friends and for linking. I for one am now embarassed to to let my friends see my photos. They look so bad after up-loading to Smugmug. I payed for a service which has now been degraded.
I understand Andy's statement that the originals are un-compressed and that his buyers understand about compressed thumbnails and they can be sure that they will get good files. That does me no good however as I use the site for viewing only.
</rant>

Bear

could we see your site (linky) and some examples?

thanks. :ear

EDIT: I found your site, behr655.smugmug.com

are you embarrased about this shot??? (http://behr655.smugmug.com/gallery/463197/1/21271922/Large)

surely you're not embarrased about this one? (http://behr655.smugmug.com/gallery/747116/1/32930652/Large)

you have some cool stuff on your site, behr. could you provide specific links to shots you think are showing compression issues?

thanks

behr655

Aug-29-2005, 03:00 PM

could we see your site (linky) and some examples?

thanks. :ear

EDIT: I found your site, behr655.smugmug.com

are you embarrased about this shot??? (http://behr655.smugmug.com/gallery/463197/1/21271922/Large)

surely you're not embarrased about this one? (http://behr655.smugmug.com/gallery/747116/1/32930652/Large)

you have some cool stuff on your site, behr. could you provide specific links to shots you think are showing compression issues?

thanks
The first shot is ok and was loaded some time ago. The second shot was loaded recently and does not look as good on smugmug as it does on my hard drive. There are a lot of artifacts that don't show when I view it at the same dimention on my hard drive.

Bear

Andy

Aug-29-2005, 03:01 PM

The first shot is ok and was loaded some time ago. The second shot was loaded recently and does not look as good on smugmug as it does on my hard drive. There are a lot of artifacts that don't show when I view it at the same dimention on my hard drive.

Bear

could you point out where you see the artifacts on the 2nd shot - i'm not seeing them bear...

behr655

Aug-29-2005, 03:15 PM

could you point out where you see the artifacts on the 2nd shot - i'm not seeing them bear...Along the mountain ridge. Also not artifacts but over sharpening on the fishing poles.

Here is a shot that shows a lot of artifacts that do not appear ondrive when viewed at the same size. Notice just above his hat. The stick protruding from the water near the bottom left. The rock nearest the camera. Also around the trees. Notice the bush in the lower left seems over sharped.

http://behr655.smugmug.com/photos/32930777-L.jpg

Bear

pengrus

Aug-29-2005, 08:15 PM

which one was made by smugmug, and which was made by me, and finally, which one was made by me and also compressed by half?

(no cheating by looking at the file size!)

resized to 800x533 and compressed to <100kb by me in photoshop:
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/33721460-L.jpg

compressed by smugmug to 800x533
http://williams.smugmug.com/photos/33721512-L.jpg

Good comparison. I have decided to cancel my account here. I am done with smugmug. Good publicity, not so good image quality, not even close standard.

Andy, I still cannot believe that you can accept image quality generated by smugmug. If the one you resized is not even over 100KB, why can't smugmug team look into details what they are doing wrong or not enough? Even under 100KB is an overkill for bandwidth? C'mon!

I am out of here. Thanks for all who contributed to this discussion. I think now everybody should have a good understanding of issue involved - poor compression.

Andy

Aug-30-2005, 02:17 AM

I am out of here.

too bad - did you notice that smugmug said they're looking into it even further?

kwalsh

Aug-30-2005, 05:35 AM

Good comparison.
....
I think now everybody should have a good understanding of issue involved - poor compression. Um, not to start a flame war or anything, but I think for Andy's sample images you definately missed the point. I don't see any compression artifacts in the smugmug file, I do see that it seems to be less sharpened than Andy's creations (correct me if I'm wrong Andy).

And why is it less sharpened???? Because after vehement posts by all the "Pros" on this forum that their images were being "destroyed" by smugmug's "oversharpening" the smugmug folks changed it. They made it very clear that except for a few pixel peepers they *never* get complaints about oversharpening - they get complaints about undersharp, but not over. Nonetheless, the fury was so loud they dialed back the USM settings.

And now after vehement complaints about compression it appears you fell for the oldest trick in the book - sharpening :) Can't please everyone I guess.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat too quickly, I completely agree there are artifacts on many images as demonstrated by the examples in this thread, just not in Andy's example. And since I actually use a broadband connection and not morse code to interact with smugmug I'd really like to see larger files. That said, I also realize smugmug already has larger files than their competition in their target market and they do have to worry about a lot of 56K users.

If you're still around pengrus I'm curious where you're moving to with better compression. I wasn't able to find much except to do my own site. And if I did my own site there is no cheaper storage than smugmug so what I'd do is host all my own compressed thumbnails and originals on smugmug and then just have the HTML portion of the web page hosted on an independent server. Smugmug for cheap massive amounts of storage and a smaller but still probably more expensive server for a custom interface (there are things like Jalbum out there that can do it pretty easy). Just a thought if you can't find anything better out there - and you can make use of your remaining time in your smugmug subscription. No need to pay for anything but the cheapest level.

Good luck, and I hope you find something you like.

Ken

Andy

Aug-30-2005, 05:43 AM

Um, not to start a flame war or anything, but I think for Andy's sample images you definately missed the point. I don't see any compression artifacts in the smugmug file, I do see that it seems to be less sharpened than Andy's creations (correct me if I'm wrong Andy).

And why is it less sharpened???? Because after vehement posts by all the "Pros" on this forum that their images were being "destroyed" by smugmug's "oversharpening" the smugmug folks changed it. They made it very clear that except for a few pixel peepers they *never* get complaints about oversharpening - they get complaints about undersharp, but not over. Nonetheless, the fury was so loud they dialed back the USM settings.

And now after vehement complaints about compression it appears you fell for the oldest trick in the book - sharpening :) Can't please everyone I guess.

Now, before anyone jumps down my throat too quickly, I completely agree there are artifacts on many images as demonstrated by the examples in this thread, just not in Andy's example. And since I actually use a broadband connection and not morse code to interact with smugmug I'd really like to see larger files. That said, I also realize smugmug already has larger files than their competition in their target market and they do have to worry about a lot of 56K users.

If you're still around pengrus I'm curious where you're moving to with better compression. I wasn't able to find much except to do my own site. And if I did my own site there is no cheaper storage than smugmug so what I'd do is host all my own compressed thumbnails and originals on smugmug and then just have the HTML portion of the web page hosted on an independent server. Smugmug for cheap massive amounts of storage and a smaller but still probably more expensive server for a custom interface (there are things like Jalbum out there that can do it pretty easy). Just a thought if you can't find anything better out there - and you can make use of your remaining time in your smugmug subscription. No need to pay for anything but the cheapest level.

Good luck, and I hope you find something you like.

Ken

yep - you're so right, ken. sharpening is such a personal taste thing. and we did go thru a period of sharpening adjustments.

in fact, my fs 1ds mark ii shot, i didn't sharpen it at all - i just uploaded it to smugmug, and let smug do the sharpening on the way down, to -L size. now, if i wanted it sharper, to match the middle one, i could have done that before uploading the full-res file.

Mike Lane

Aug-30-2005, 06:54 AM

Take a look at this (http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?p=156244#post156244). I don't know the details yet (I asked in the next message) but I wonder if this is due to pbase's compression scheme. If so I'd say that smugmug is at least on par or maybe better.

unsavory

Aug-30-2005, 07:16 AM

in fact, my fs 1ds mark ii shot, i didn't sharpen it at all - i just uploaded it to smugmug, and let smug do the sharpening on the way down, to -L size. now, if i wanted it sharper, to match the middle one, i could have done that before uploading the full-res file. There are really two issues here. One, as a pro user (which I'm not currently), why should I be subjected to ANY amount of sharpening by Smugmug? This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't want my images altered in any way at all other than downsizing and a reasonable amount of compression (so long as they still look OK). Can't we have the option to bypass the Smugmug sharpening stuff? Let us sharpen our own pics as a Pro. I understand why you may want to sharpen consumer snapshots (even this is debatable), but not pro galleries.

Andy, to take your own words, "sharpening is such a personal taste thing". Yes, you're absolutely right. So let us do it ourselves (if we wish).

The second issue is that it's not sharpening that's the problem. It's the compression. True, a highly sharpened image will exagerate this. But it's still the compression itself.

Andy

Aug-30-2005, 07:18 AM

jfriend

Aug-30-2005, 07:51 AM

There are really two issues here. One, as a pro user (which I'm not currently), why should I be subjected to ANY amount of sharpening by Smugmug? This is the point I'm trying to make. I don't want my images altered in any way at all other than downsizing and a reasonable amount of compression (so long as they still look OK). Can't we have the option to bypass the Smugmug sharpening stuff? Let us sharpen our own pics as a Pro. I understand why you may want to sharpen consumer snapshots (even this is debatable), but not pro galleries.
So, for the record, I'm in favor of smugmug offering us some preferences to control sharpening and compression level.

But, you asked why they would ever sharpen. First, they don't touch your original. It is not sharpened. If someone orders a print, the print is made directly from the unaltered original you uploaded. But, they do sharpen the size-reduced versions. The answer to why they do that is that when you compress a JPEG image, it loses apparent sharpness. Smugmug applies a fairly gentle amount of sharpening that is designed to try to maintain the same visible sharpness that the much larger original has. So, for the vast majority of non-PRO users (which is most of the world population), this is likely a desirable feature that makes their images on the web look a little better than they would have without it.

I'm not arguing that there aren't reasons for pro users to want to control this themselves. There are. And ultimately, the only way this thread will go away is when smugmug gives the pro users this control or if they slowly defect to other sites. I myself would like to dial in a little less JPEG compression at the cost of a little download speed, but I like the added sharpening.

--John

unsavory

Aug-30-2005, 08:09 AM

So, for the record, I'm in favor of smugmug offering us some preferences to control sharpening and compression level.
Please also add me to that record. :D:D

Just thought I would say it is nice to hear you guys at Smugmug are discussing this. Regardless of the outcome, at least we know you do actually listen to your customers. Something that cannot be said for most other services.

My hats off to you.

pengrus

Aug-31-2005, 03:18 PM

too bad - did you notice that smugmug said they're looking into it even further?
No I did not see that. I missed the post?

pengrus

Aug-31-2005, 03:20 PM

Baldy

Aug-31-2005, 06:17 PM

No I did not see that. I missed the post?Yes, the post was on the effort to find a way to adaptively choose the compression level.

The images that cause problems are usually small byte-wise because they compress so well, because they have areas of nearly solid color. If we compress those less it probably won't cause the unwashed masses who think we're too slow to increase their flaming.

But if we just compress less across the board, the 90+% of images that look fine now because they're already big byte-wise are going to get bigger and the speed flamers will come down on us harder than they already do because our images are already bigger than all but one (unpopular) sharing site.

Baldy

Aug-31-2005, 07:23 PM

Along the mountain ridge. Also not artifacts but over sharpening on the fishing poles.

Here is a shot that shows a lot of artifacts that do not appear ondrive when viewed at the same size. Notice just above his hat. The stick protruding from the water near the bottom left. The rock nearest the camera. Also around the trees. Notice the bush in the lower left seems over sharped.

http://behr655.smugmug.com/photos/32930777-L.jpg

BearI don't like the artifacts in the trees, upper right.

I spent some time on this image to see what it would take. If I double the byte size and do no sharpening, I get this:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/34267303-L.jpg

It's definitely cleaner but I can still see artifacts along the trees and skyline in the center, and I think we'd still hear about them, no? Unfortunately, it's now going to download in 23 seconds on a 56k modem... So I have to ask why doubling the size with its resulting penalities didn't clean it up more?

I think the answer is this image has some noise & artifacts in the original:

Here are the original pixels around the trees:

http://cmac.smugmug.com/photos/34269149-L.jpg

My conclusion from this image is in line with what we're thinking: for images like this that have broad areas of water or sky and already compress small (this one is 63k), we can afford to compress it less, to maybe 100k. That will clean it up some but no compression level is going to take one that already has artifacts and make it perfect.

No?

unsavory

Sep-01-2005, 10:28 AM

My conclusion from this image is in line with what we're thinking: for images like this that have broad areas of water or sky and already compress small (this one is 63k), we can afford to compress it less, to maybe 100k. That will clean it up some but no compression level is going to take one that already has artifacts and make it perfect.

No?
Yes, you are correct in saying that no compression level will fix a photo that already has artifacts. Just to clarify, I hope you're not thinking that all the people who are complaining already have artifacts in their originals, because this is simply not the case. :):

If you can afford to compress it less, I'm all for it. Any amount helps. By the way, the photo you increased byte-wise is a very significant improvement over the original compressed one.

delenca

Sep-04-2005, 07:18 AM

If you're still around pengrus I'm curious where you're moving to with better compression. I wasn't able to find much except to do my own site.
ken
Have you tried Imageevent.com?
I had the same experience as pengrus and others vis-a-vis compression and artifacts at smugmug, and discussed it here on threads and by email with Baldy, who was very straighforward and clear with me. Nevertheless, the problem bothered me and so I cancelled my smugmug account before the trial period expired. In the end, I found that ImageEvent had better image quality (bigger thumbnails/lessorbettercompression), allows the viewers to order pictures to print, has plenty of options (including option for hierarchical organization, is easy to set up (for instance you can specify what the default image viewing size is) and is customizable in look (w/o having to fiddle with css), and is a better price. Now, smugmug does have great customer service and a very useful forum (as well as a great word-of-mouth across the web) but I consider the quality of the displayed pictures to be the most critical aspect of the service. Right now Imageevent.com does better than smugmug (or pbase for that matter). I'll keep an eye on any future updates of smugmug to check out if/when/ the compression artifact issues get addressed. Meanwhile, Imageevent does quite well for me.

-Alex

samwise

Sep-04-2005, 10:02 AM

Have you tried Imageevent.com?
....and is a better price.

I've just highlighted that bit as I couldn't comment on the rest, but imageevent.com is $24.95 p.a., for a maximum of 1500 images (1500Mb estimate).

Even though smugmug Standard is $5 more a year, it has unlimited storage :dunno

Dancephotos

Sep-05-2005, 04:01 PM

I started off with Smugmug (after some homerolled weblog/javascript popup solutions). I wasn't happy with how the images looked compressed and have been thinking about cancelling my account.

Basically I'm a candidate for pro or no.

I also think that there is whole lot too much Smugmug branding around (favicon, title bar, on page) - some of which is very detrimental to search results in google (if you're wondering why few find your images through the search engines, much of it is Smugmug's fault).

But to return to the images, here is the same image from:

Smugmug

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/32859916-L-2.jpghttp://www.smugmug.com/photos/32859916-L-2.jpg

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/32859916-L-2.jpg

PBase

uncoy/tomtomorrow/pbaseIMGP2608highcontrast.jpg
http://decadencefilms.com/uncoy/tomtomorrow/pbaseIMGP2608highcontrast.jpg

Photoshop compression:

http://www.decadencefilms.com/gallery/albums/Chris-Haring-Liquid-Loft/stephanie_cumming_beauty.jpg
http://www.decadencefilms.com/gallery/albums/Chris-Haring-Liquid-Loft/stephanie_cumming_beauty.jpg

My own gallery installation with ImageMagick set at 90

http://www.decadencefilms.com/gallery/albums/Chris-Haring-Liquid-Loft/IMGP2608_highcontrast.sized.jpg

Evaluation - Photoshop version is head and shoulders above the others. I don't feel like going back to rolling every image by hand.

ImageMagick does a nice job at 90. Unfortunately gallery doesn't give one many versions (original + plus the size of your choice + thumbnail at size of your choice). If one uploads an original in a large size (say 1000 pixels and sets the downsized version at 600 pixels, one has viewers from 800 x 600 to 1600 x 1200 covered reasonably well). But no question of uploading originals.

After that Smugmug does quite a nice job but with some very nasty artificats around the nose and the face. But serviceable. If we with pro/power accounts could boost our compression levels for selected galleries, an 80 or 85 compression level should handle the issue. Apparently NetPBM does a better job of compression than ImageMagick but no doubt Smugmug have their reasons to prefer ImageMagick.

Finally, the PBase version is execrable. It is unuseable. It is not something one would want others to see. To get along with PBase one would have to upload images less than 800 pixels on the largest side to eliminate the PBase large size that many viewers choose by default.

The medium size versions are even worse, for both Smugmug and PBase.

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/32859916-M-2.jpg
http://www.smugmug.com/photos/32859916-M-2.jpg

PBase

http://decadencefilms.com/uncoy/tomtomorrow/pbasemediumIMGP2608highcontrast.jpg

If there was ever a call for lower automatic compression levels this is it!

I wouldn't want to post either of those images into a weblog or a forum. Granted the Smugmug medium sized image is head and shoulders above PBase.

Here is what Gallery with ImageMagick at 90 does with the thumbnail. Useable.

http://www.decadencefilms.com/gallery/albums/Chris-Haring-Liquid-Loft/stephanie_cumming_beauty.thumb.jpg

Clearly better than the Smugmug small

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/32859916-S-2.jpg

and Smugmug thumbnail:

http://www.smugmug.com/photos/32859916-Th-2.jpg

Please don't tell me again about users with 56k modems! Those people are not out browsing photographs at this point. They will wait to get to an internet café if images are what they are after.

I don't think that professional image creators need to worry that the crowd in the bleacher is on a 386 with 640x480 monitor and 28k connection. This may be a bandwidth issue for Smugmug - but surely the intrinsic madness of uploading 10 MB originals and leaving them online is a larger bandwidth issue than decent looking thumbnails and medium sized photos.

The slowness issue seems to come more from code and server response times than from image size (I am on broadband and find an enormous lag when flipping between pages - although the images download quickly when they come).

I hope all of the above examples are of use to someone else.

I'm about ready to return to writing poetry. At least, there's a good chance that when published on the web your words will appear as you wrote them.

In fairness to Smugmug, they are trying very hard to do a good job in making our images appear good online and when printed. This thread is a good example of open communication on the issue. Hopefully this post will put to rest any idea that in terms of compression, the grass is greener elsewhere. I haven't tried a Flickr but I don't think compression is their strong suit judging by the impression that others' images have left me with.

To reiterate - pros need to be able to activate a lower compression (across all image sizes) for selected galleries. This should not be a global for the account as everyone has galleries that good is good enough.

Andy

Sep-05-2005, 04:09 PM

I also think that there is whole lot too much Smugmug branding around (favicon, title bar, on page) - some of which is very detrimental to search results in google (if you're wondering why few find your images through the search engines, much of it is Smugmug's fault).

did you know you can change the favicon, title bar all of that? :D it's simple and easy and many have done it.

also, i would challenge your statement regarding it being "smugmug's fault" heheh - baldy and onethumb are incredibly adept at the google dance, and i can tell you that time and again i get phone calls, emails, from folks wanting images of mine that they found via google. if that's smugmug's fault, then i'm jazzed about that :lol3

as to your examples and other suggestions - thanks so much for taking the time to put them up here, and to say how you fell - it's incredibly important feedback and i'm certain that the engineers are going to look at it and take it to heart.

:wave thanks again for contributing to this thread, dancephotos!

behr655

Sep-05-2005, 04:37 PM

I don't like the artifacts in the trees, upper right.

I spent some time on this image to see what it would take. If I double the byte size and do no sharpening, I get this:

It's definitely cleaner but I can still see artifacts along the trees and skyline in the center, and I think we'd still hear about them, no? Unfortunately, it's now going to download in 23 seconds on a 56k modem... So I have to ask why doubling the size with its resulting penalities didn't clean it up more?

I think the answer is this image has some noise & artifacts in the original:

Here are the original pixels around the trees:

My conclusion from this image is in line with what we're thinking: for images like this that have broad areas of water or sky and already compress small (this one is 63k), we can afford to compress it less, to maybe 100k. That will clean it up some but no compression level is going to take one that already has artifacts and make it perfect.

No?
Sorry Baldy, I missed your response.
Yes your re-work does look better. Thanks for having a look at it. There are some artifacts in the original and it's a bit noisey too.
Just wondering how smugmug will be able to determine which photos could qualify for less compression.

Bear

nickjohnson

Sep-05-2005, 07:04 PM

Personally I think that there is no sharpness issue exactly, maybe just underexposure and a look of no good contrast. I rarely get correct exposure out of my 10D, always shooting raw and usually resorting to about 1 stop of exposure compensation in Capture One to make things look pleasing. Remember, skintones are supposed to be one stop above neutral for light skinned people to look natural.
As for compression, I know for a fact that clients would rather work fast and get the print at full quality than wait for the webhost to load a huge page. Its just a preview!

-Nick

Dancephotos

Sep-06-2005, 03:39 PM

Hello Andy,

Thanks for your comments. I didn't know there was a way to get at the favicon. I've managed to clean up my own space otherwise at this point thanks to the CSS customisation options. Unfortunately the display:none tag leaves all this stuff on the page thus Google does see it all and it clutters its idea of what your page is about. When used to excess display:none can even get your site banned.

In terms of SEO for Google, the title tag is the most important one on the page. By hijacking it (and making it generic for all pages of your Smugmug site), Smugmug makes us the one-legged man in the race. Glad to hear you make it to the finish line sometimes Andy but you would do much, much better if they wouldn't. Due to database constraints, already URLs are a lost cause, but the title tag they can and should give back to users - at least at a pro level. What you want there is Gallery name/photo name.

To return to image quality - of the online galleries, Smugmug is the only one which provides good quality. Kudos where kudos are due. Nothing like Photoshop save for web with medium to high settings, but much better than anyone else (out of curiousity I tested Flickr's compression (http://www.flickr.com/photo_zoom.gne?id=40964612&size=l) today and they do surprisingly well on the large size but fall to pieces on the medium and small sizes)

Bear - In terms of how to decide which pictures get it and which don't it's very simple. The photographer needs to set it himself on a per gallery basis. He should be able to set it after seeing versions that he is not happy with. It could be a customisable number (but that might lead to a lot of playing around, overwhelming the servers - bad) or just a significantly higher preset - like 90 for instance which is the default for Menalto Gallery out of the box.

Nick - Of course I would like my images to download as fast as possible like anyone else, so I would leave my default setting at normal and only use the lower compression setting for galleries which have pictures which show artifacting in key areas (face, eyes, mouth), like this particular one.

I disagree with you on the preview comment. Depending on the photographer, the presentation of the image at Smugmug is no preview. People are coming and enjoying your work, perhaps to return and buy years later (after many visits). In many cases, it is like a permanent ongoing exhibition.

Thanks to Behr for the river example above. It prompted me to do my own detailed comparison testing. The artifacting around the man's head (center of the photograph!) in the more compressed version would be totally unacceptable to me. The second version is much better as at least the artificating does not catch one's eye immediately.

Cheers to all.

unsavory

Sep-07-2005, 07:57 AM

Well put Dancephotos.

delenca

Sep-08-2005, 11:58 AM

Hello Andy,
To return to image quality - of the online galleries, Smugmug is the only one which provides good quality. Kudos where kudos are due.
Cheers to all. Hi Dancephotos,

Not to beat this issue to death but wanted to clarify something - Smugmug is NOT the best in image quality. Granted, it's better than pbase, but ImageEvent is superior. ImageEvent's thumbnails are bigger (i.e. slightly more kb) and better (i.e. less compressed/fewer artifacts) without causing slower download times. Baldy agrees with this statement (at least as to quality - maybe not on speed). This is especially true of the "medium" thumbnail setting which a lot of people with slow connections like to look at (compromise between quality and speed). Also, on ImageEvent you can actually choose what quality to set for the generated thumbnails. Isn't that the perfect compromise?!

If smugmug can devote time to "gee-whiz" features such as "map it", I am sure they can implement a system that gives users a choice on what compression settings to use (and note that you don't need to be a "power user" on ImageEvent to do that...).

My 2 cents on an important topic.

Cheers,
Alex