Uploading pictures and loss of resolution

If you submit them to the BPL as part of a post, they get resized and optimized for the web.

If you host them elsewhere, you can use the html img tag to link them in at different resolution.

"If you submit them to the BPL as part of a post, they get resized and optimized for the web. "

Thanks "Willie" :)

I was just disappointed at how much loss of resolution there was with the few pictures I posted on BPL lately. I have uploaded some on Flickr at almost full res. Maybe I will just link to that versus ruining some nice photographs..

Kat,
Do you have an example of poor resolution?

I went to a test site, got a test pattern, Cropped it in photoshop (not Resize Image) to get an 8×8 chunk that was about 1 MB. Then I "Saved For Web", which reduced it down to about 50K. This is the result –

To my eye it is identical to the original, as seen on my monitor.

Here is the same test pattern saved as a 1 MB png and uploaded –

Which is pretty close to the 50k image.

I believe there is a maximum image size, and BPL will downsize if you're over, but for most images under that you should be good.

So I'm curious about what you see on your original on your monitor versus what you see when uploaded to BPL.

Hi Kat

It is my impression that when the ISP which hosts BPL downsizes an image to fit, the algorithm they use is really crappy. So I always reduce images mysef to about 800 pixels wide so they should not be touched, then I do a little magic sharpness enhancement. That works for me.

Um – better check the width: sometimes it seems they reduce even further than down to 800 pixels. But doing it myself is ALWAYS better.

Cheers

For reference, my first image above is 550×553, the second one is 550×545, even though, bit-wise, the originals are very different.

Alt Click on an image and select View Image Info for those details.

Thanks Roger, that's what I was thinking. Seems like if the file is really large is gets resized to smaller than the maximum allowed and that would explain the quality.

Greg, the photos I am talking about are four or five times larger than the one you posted.
But here is one that is not even that large and below I will put the link to the Flickr version. Let me know what you think, please. It could just be me.

https://www.flickr.com/photos/katpierini/18999576994/in/album-72157655746709492/

Edited…I "saved" the image that was posted and put it next to the original and there is a big difference in resolution.

I agree that the Flickr image Is more impressive. It pops.

But … I think a lot of the difference is image size on the screen. The detail, saturation, and range of exposure shown above isn't bad. I can see the individual flowers center left. The snow isn't burned out. The lower right isn't black.

I'm not in any way defending BPL imaging. Bigger and more bits would be better. But I do get a sense of the beauty and scale of the land, and am not distracted by the quality of the image. (Perhaps my expectations are low from years of TR images.)

Kat,
You are correct. It is easy to see with the flowers on the hill and grass in the bare spots. That said, the picture on the BPL site is still really nice!

Cliff

Thanks Clifford!

Hi Greg, I know what you mean and I am not really criticizing BPL….I just wanted to know if it was better to resize before posting versus having the pictures resized to something even smaller than the maximum allowed. It sounds like that is indeed the case. I am working on a couple of trip reports and might include a few pics here and then link to the full albums on Flickr :)

Hi Kat

Fantastic photos anyhow.
But yes, do the resizing yourself first.
But when you do that the result will look a shade blurred. Experiment with the sharpening filter if your SW has one. Only use it at the lowest setting. It can make a world of difference.

Cheers