Thank you for your report!
We have received your report and it is currently under investigation by a forum moderator.
Image quality
Welcome to the forum.
Here you can discuss all things art with like-minded artists, join regular painting challenges, ask questions, buy and sell art materials and much more.
Make sure you sign in or register to join the discussions.
Hang on Studio Wall
This is a Studio member-only feature!
Join our Studio membership and save your favourite Painters Online content, from gallery artwork to step-by-step guides, to your own online mood boards. Create your go-to place for inspiration and learning. Plus, members can also enjoy a range of exciting features including monthly art videos and a digital magazine library.
If you are already a Studio member, simply login to your account.
Not a Studio member? Why not try our free 30-day trial - no commitment, no credit card required
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2
Message
Posted
This might be an old question, so if it is please forgive the repetition.
I noticed recently how the image quality seems to be noisy and indistinct for some of my gallery posts and wondered why, especially as I post on a private poetry site where art work is welcome. The thing is, the same painting/image, with the same cropped pixel count, looks much better on the other site. Now, I'm an I.T. ignoramus (hence the post) so I checked the count on a number of paintings on the gallery. My post of 600 pix came out on the gallery at 254 x 169 pix, with 254 pix being common to most posts. My question is: Will this reduction make a difference to image quality? It's a genuine question and not a contrived piece of sarcasm, so any answers would be very welcome.
All the best
Bri
Posted
I've been waiting for someone more clued-up than me to respond. I'm wondering if the POL gallery is pixels/inch based. I tend to upload normal pics at 100 pixels/inch, at the same time reducing the longest dimension (length or height) to 600 pixels...this seems OK provided I also remember to sharpen the image (they are reduced from my normal pixel/inch size of 300...so they need sharpening.) Occasionally I post little 6 x 4 inch pictures...when I uploaded these at 100 pixels/inch my little miniatures looked enormous and awful. I experimented by reducing the pixel/inch size to 50...that worked, and these little 6 x 4 paintings looked more like they should. The image size for these is about 293 x 190 pixels...similar to what you referred to.
Maybe it's the sharpening that's important...when you've been fiddling with the size they usually new sharpening. I'm using old fashioned stuff...a desktop PC...and an ancient version of photoshop to alter the size. If you have the means to sharpen I'd try that. If you ARE sharpening your pics, I'd suggest uploading a larger image, if your average is 254 x 169 that seems a bit small.
I'm no expert, I just fiddled around until something worked.
Lew.
Posted
Thanks, Linda and Lew, for the replies. Much appreciated. It's a tricky one because sometimes I get quite a good picture and at other times the quality is very poor. I'm beginning to think it's caused by too much manipulation IE reducing and cropping then reducing and cropping again, but I noticed if I placed a photo, reduced from approx. 3500 to 600 pix (width), on one site, the pix count remains at 600, whereas here it drops significantly to 254 pix. It was this that had me wondering, just so I'd know. So I'm going to reduce and crop only once from now on and just keep experimenting, as you suggest, Lew.
It's not an easy question to answer, so thanks again for chipping in.
Thanks to both
Bri
Posted
I've been quite pleased with most of my photos on here - taken usually with a standard digital camera (of some vintage by the standard of these things) with no added features to complicate things and annoy me; and until I got this computer, and found that Picasa has changed hands so I need to find a new picture editor, all I did generally was crop the image to size, and upload it. So I didn't fiddle about with them (don't really know how to) and maybe that bears out your own experience ....
I hate complicated tech - too old for it, can never remember what the hell I'm supposed to be doing with it, and my view is in general - about just about everything - the simpler the better.
Posted
I think that's the road to follow, Robert. I have to reduce and crop the image to post, but from now on it will be only once. It's the mixed results that gets me, though, and perhaps it's just down to available light for the noise issue and bad camera work for the blurring. "Know thyself" leaps to mind.
I've recently (today) read that screen resolution can have an affect, with the optimum size for websites being around 800 pix wide, depending. However, my lack of understanding leaves me on thin ice when trying to determine the problem. I'll try the experimental route, as Lew suggested, to see what I can come up with. I've already reduced the pixel size of a preliminary painting in WIP (Perch Pond) to see if it's clearer by reducing the image pixels and subsequent dimensions, a point Linda was getting at, I think. I won't know until I finish it with oils but it's a start. I see you've commented on the painting so I'll be right over as soon as I've finished posting this reply.
Thanks for the answer, as it helps to know how other people are getting on with their posts.
Best
Bri
Posted
Thanks again for the very useful information, Pat.
I've tried Robert's suggestion of simply going with the crop without resizing and it HAS made a difference to image quality; that and improved lighting seems to help.
There are so many things to consider, and when I was at school a computer belonged in a Sci-Fi movie.
Bri
Posted
I might claim to be the least I.T technically knowlegeable poster on site. For years I had Windows XP Professional Paint, and it was great for posting pics etc, including adding them into frames and all sorts of useful bits. When my old p.c finally bit the dust I had to go modernised and now have Windows 10. I really wish I still had XP as 10 doesn't have half the simple basic features. I'm trying to find a way to download the old version of X.P Paint. My son or one of my daughters will probably know how when they visit. Isn't technology supposd to make things easier?
p.s For this site and uploading my pics etc, I just save them to Pictures and upload them here from files without changing any pixels, sizes etc. That part's simple enough and the quality seems ok.
Edited
by Wanderer69
Posted
I've just posted a pic in the Gallery and it's showing 750 pix. rather than my intitial 500 pix. The exact same picture was posted in WIP in the Forum and the dimensions are 500 pix, as per my original crop and resizing. The WIP version is much crisper and true to life, but it's considerably smaller in area.
I think smaller and crisper is better.
Bri
Edited
by Beemax
Showing page 1 of 2
- 1
- 2