The last couple of attempts I have made to post to a gallery have been disasters. I will include one of the images in question in the reply section. My problem is that after I save for web and view a nicely sharp image on my screen, I upload it and it turns to a blurry, pixelated mess on the NPN website (see "Old Craggy Tree in Marsh" in Todd West's gallery). I use win7 and PS5. The reason I wanted to post here is to see if the same thing happens in a forum reply.
This really isn't much better.... what I'm seeing here is nothing like what I'm looking at on my computer from my "save for web" 700 pixel jpg. HELP!!!!
When you say "PS5," I assume you mean Photoshop CS5?
It looks like your colors are mis-mapped. Early in your post processing, select Edit -> Convert Profile and select sRGB from the popup. The web uses sRGB, which differs in important ways from other color spaces. Search "color space" on NPN for more information.
Before trying to upload your photos, re-size them for NPN standards. Select Image -> Image Size and make the photo 720 pixels long on the longest side. Do the rest of your post-processing, and then select File -> Save for Web & Devices and adjust he Quality (upper right hand corner) to the highest number you can while keeping the file size under 200K.
Obviously, I've simplified, but try the simplest steps first and then work on the glosses.
Posted by Lon Overacker on August 5, 2010 at 5:50 PM
Todd,
Sorry you're having trouble and hopefully some of the more talented pixel heads here can help you out, but I'll toss out a few things.
I can't see NPN doing anything to this, it's just displaying in a browser like all the other sites. I know Jim posts a transparent gif over all the images to reduce stealing, but that doesn't impact the image. If you're posting at 720 or smaller, there shouldn't be any re-sizing going on either. I'm assuming you're posting a <200kb image file rather than hosting the image out on the web somewhere?
It would be helpful if you could provide your workflow and PS/Save for web settings. Rather than have someone go through all the possibilities and variables, if you post your technique and settings someone should be able to point out what might be going on.
First question that will come up, Is your monitor calibrated?
What color space are you working in?
Are the jpg saved using the sRGB profile?
What is the jpg quality setting in Save-for-web? (an image like this with lots of detail is tough to get under 200k at 700px
What is your sharpening method? How do you go from the large digital file down to web size?
What color selection do you have in the Save for Web "preview menu?" (I'm CS3, so probably different.)
That's only a few questions and variables. Let us know what your workflow is and hopefully someone can pinpoint the problem. At least we'll give it a shot.
Lon
ps. I also wanted to mention the sticky thread in the Digital Forum that could be of help.
Great advice above.
As for me, I ceased having any problems whatsoever when I ceased using the 'Save for Web' function and went back to plain ol' 'Save as...'.
*EDIT*
I opened this image in PS and saw that it was already tagged with the sRGB color space. Try using 'Save as...' with the original resized file and see if it makes a difference.
Posted by Lon Overacker on August 5, 2010 at 7:10 PM
John,
I think at one point we've all had troubles figuring out PS and having images display the way we thought they were suppose to or how they looked in PS. I had trouble with save-for-web too until I figured out the right combination of settings.
to John or anyone else, I too downloaded the image and checked the profile, but I have a question. If you go to Edit>Convert Profile it says the source space is sRGB. Fine. But in Standard Screen mode at the bottom of the display window you can choose to display things like dimesion size, version cue, document size and document profile. When selecting document profile it lists Todd's image as "Untagged RGB." So the question is - is there a difference between a profile and a sourse working space? If those are the right terms... And could it be the difference between "assigning" or "converting" to a profile?
I look at one of my saved images and the Document Profile says sRGB, and that is one of the options selected in the Save-for-web dialogue. I also have an action that explicity converts the profile to sRGB.
Anyway, don't mean to steal your thread Todd, but hopefully the discussion is all relevant.
I'm going to try using "save as" instead of save for web..... image will be miniscule due to amount of detail 300X226px (roughly 4.1X3.1")... 198kb... here goes....
What does one do in this situation? I bet that if I put a magnifying glass to my screen, that the image would look better. Do I dare take resolution below 72px/in?
Posted by Jim Erhardt on August 5, 2010 at 8:09 PM
Todd, feel free to email me a psd file and I will convert to web and upload.
editor@naturephotographers.net
Posted by Mark Stahlke on August 5, 2010 at 8:15 PM
Todd,
You will find JPEG compression is rather cruel to finely detailed images but your first post is hardly a "blurry, pixelated mess".
What web browser and ISP are you using? Some of them may have a setting to compress images on the fly for faster downloading. AOL is (or was) notorious for this.
Do other people's images look OK?
-my monitor is calibrated with SpyderPro2
-I use USM for sharpening (settings in this case were "blindly" set at 130/.4/7 because
the image had to be so small that sharpening is almost a moot point)
-I reduced a large TIFF with image size (see settings above), but forgot to convert
Adobe RGB to sRGB (will do that in this reply).... also will experiment with 50px/in res
(I think this will be to low)
Posted by Alan Olander on August 5, 2010 at 8:24 PM
PPI (px/in) doesn't make one bit of difference. Only the pixel dimensions determine the size on screen. That and the compression determine the file size.
Posted by Lon Overacker on August 5, 2010 at 9:01 PM
Todd,
As Alan mentioned, you ppi setting 72ppi, 50 or 1200... it doesn't matter. What matters is the actual dimensions of the image file. Of course it also depends on whether or not your selecting the "resample image" in the Image size dialogue box. Again, it's important to know what you're doing when resizing your images. The small images you've just posted are quite pixelated.
Please feel free to take up Jim's offer. I would be glad to receive a large PSD file as well to post for comparison.
Lon
Posted by David Bostedo on August 5, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Todd - Your first post actually looks fine to me. Maybe we're not seeing what you are. There're really only three things you need to do to post - other things, like save-for-web, can help some, but you should get good results in a lot of ways :
1) Convert (NOT assign) to sRGB
2) Resize so the longest side is 720 pixels
3) Save as a JPG with a high enough compression that you get under 200 kB (I've gone as low as 5 in PS with good results but this is image dependent)
One other thing is your ISP. Sometimes ISPs will try to help "speed up" your connection by compressing images or sending low res versions - this can make things look funky and pixelated.
Todd: This actually looks OK to me. I had a similar phenomenon happen to me and I've been posting images successfully for a long time. Look at this thread and see if it sheds some light on your issue. >=))>
Posted by Donna Erhardt on August 7, 2010 at 12:37 PM
Here's a "save for web" version based on a PSD file Todd sent me. All I did is resize to 720 pixels and save at the highest possible quality to stay under 200kb.
(Jim logged in as Donna)
Posted by David Bostedo on August 7, 2010 at 1:50 PM
Jim's post looks the same as Todd's first post to my eye (other than being a little bigger). I don't see the problem on my end of things.
Thanks for all the help and suggestions!! The one conclusion I've come to (begrudgingly) is that once and a while an image is not going to translate well to the web (< 200kb). This is the first time that I've encountered this (probably because most of my posts 3-4 years ago were of macro subject w/ less detail). Thanks again for the help,
Todd.
Discussion
17 repliesIt looks like your colors are mis-mapped. Early in your post processing, select Edit -> Convert Profile and select sRGB from the popup. The web uses sRGB, which differs in important ways from other color spaces. Search "color space" on NPN for more information.
Before trying to upload your photos, re-size them for NPN standards. Select Image -> Image Size and make the photo 720 pixels long on the longest side. Do the rest of your post-processing, and then select File -> Save for Web & Devices and adjust he Quality (upper right hand corner) to the highest number you can while keeping the file size under 200K.
Obviously, I've simplified, but try the simplest steps first and then work on the glosses.
Sorry you're having trouble and hopefully some of the more talented pixel heads here can help you out, but I'll toss out a few things.
I can't see NPN doing anything to this, it's just displaying in a browser like all the other sites. I know Jim posts a transparent gif over all the images to reduce stealing, but that doesn't impact the image. If you're posting at 720 or smaller, there shouldn't be any re-sizing going on either. I'm assuming you're posting a <200kb image file rather than hosting the image out on the web somewhere?
It would be helpful if you could provide your workflow and PS/Save for web settings. Rather than have someone go through all the possibilities and variables, if you post your technique and settings someone should be able to point out what might be going on.
First question that will come up, Is your monitor calibrated?
What color space are you working in?
Are the jpg saved using the sRGB profile?
What is the jpg quality setting in Save-for-web? (an image like this with lots of detail is tough to get under 200k at 700px
What is your sharpening method? How do you go from the large digital file down to web size?
What color selection do you have in the Save for Web "preview menu?" (I'm CS3, so probably different.)
That's only a few questions and variables. Let us know what your workflow is and hopefully someone can pinpoint the problem. At least we'll give it a shot.
Lon
ps. I also wanted to mention the sticky thread in the Digital Forum that could be of help.
As for me, I ceased having any problems whatsoever when I ceased using the 'Save for Web' function and went back to plain ol' 'Save as...'.
*EDIT*
I opened this image in PS and saw that it was already tagged with the sRGB color space. Try using 'Save as...' with the original resized file and see if it makes a difference.
I think at one point we've all had troubles figuring out PS and having images display the way we thought they were suppose to or how they looked in PS. I had trouble with save-for-web too until I figured out the right combination of settings.
to John or anyone else, I too downloaded the image and checked the profile, but I have a question. If you go to Edit>Convert Profile it says the source space is sRGB. Fine. But in Standard Screen mode at the bottom of the display window you can choose to display things like dimesion size, version cue, document size and document profile. When selecting document profile it lists Todd's image as "Untagged RGB." So the question is - is there a difference between a profile and a sourse working space? If those are the right terms... And could it be the difference between "assigning" or "converting" to a profile?
I look at one of my saved images and the Document Profile says sRGB, and that is one of the options selected in the Save-for-web dialogue. I also have an action that explicity converts the profile to sRGB.
Anyway, don't mean to steal your thread Todd, but hopefully the discussion is all relevant.
Lon
editor@naturephotographers.net
You will find JPEG compression is rather cruel to finely detailed images but your first post is hardly a "blurry, pixelated mess".
What web browser and ISP are you using? Some of them may have a setting to compress images on the fly for faster downloading. AOL is (or was) notorious for this.
Do other people's images look OK?
-my monitor is calibrated with SpyderPro2
-I use USM for sharpening (settings in this case were "blindly" set at 130/.4/7 because
the image had to be so small that sharpening is almost a moot point)
-I reduced a large TIFF with image size (see settings above), but forgot to convert
Adobe RGB to sRGB (will do that in this reply).... also will experiment with 50px/in res
(I think this will be to low)
As Alan mentioned, you ppi setting 72ppi, 50 or 1200... it doesn't matter. What matters is the actual dimensions of the image file. Of course it also depends on whether or not your selecting the "resample image" in the Image size dialogue box. Again, it's important to know what you're doing when resizing your images. The small images you've just posted are quite pixelated.
Please feel free to take up Jim's offer. I would be glad to receive a large PSD file as well to post for comparison.
Lon
1) Convert (NOT assign) to sRGB
2) Resize so the longest side is 720 pixels
3) Save as a JPG with a high enough compression that you get under 200 kB (I've gone as low as 5 in PS with good results but this is image dependent)
One other thing is your ISP. Sometimes ISPs will try to help "speed up" your connection by compressing images or sending low res versions - this can make things look funky and pixelated.
(Jim logged in as Donna)
Todd.