GG Portfolio Resize issue - Part 2

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

When one uploads a photo to the GG Portfolio there is a warning that if the image is bigger than 600 pixels in either dimension, or is greater than 150K that it will be resized down to these limits. Many people must ignore this warning because a great number of photos are posted that are beyond these limits. When GG resizes the image, it does some sort of extra sharpening and when the photo is displayed it has obvious artifacts and is usually a very poor representation of the original photo as it looked with you uploaded it.

Below is a photo that illustrates this problem. I made this shot by first uploading an image that was 601 pixels high. I then downloaded the image after GG had resized it. I then uploaded the same exact image, but at 600 pixels high and thus it was not resized. The photo that follows shows the big differences. I have annotated the photo so you can compare some of the problem areas.



The image is very tall so you'll have to scroll to see every part of it and the text comments included with it. But if you scroll so the top of the head of the top photo is at the top edge of the browser window, you'll be able to see the critical areas of both photos at the same time. Examine the eyes, hair along the edge of the face, the red flower edges, and the overall color/tone of the photo. There are very obvious differences. The original photo created using the NIK Classical Soft focus effect, and the top photo that is unresized by GG shows a good example of this effect. It is basically ruined by the GG resize.

So, be sure to resize your photo before uploading it to GG's portfolio. Keep in mind that this resize only happens when uploading to the portfolio. If you post a photo from your own server, then you have no problem.

And finally, here is the full size photo (601 pixel) of Emilia from which the above example was made (hosted on my server):



Cheers,
rfs

[stevenD]

for the Tip

I always sized my Small verisons at 640 (previously)

and this is the first one done at 600...

While yes I have elaborated quite a bit on previous posts that I do a bit of resharpening when I sample down an image. What you are missing in your "test" is that more than likely the image will not be uploaded at 601 pixels on its longest side. It would more than likely be either 800, 1024 or 2048 (or larger) on its longest side. Thus if I resample down that large an image, it would really soften the image so I apply a small amount of resharpening. If you are uploading an image that is 601, that isn't a realistic test other than to prove what I have said a bunch of times already. If you want to do your tests again, then do it on an image that is 1024 or 800 pixes on its longest side and see the quality difference.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

[ QUOTE ]
While yes I have elaborated quite a bit on previous posts that I do a bit of resharpening when I sample down an image. What you are missing in your "test" is that more than likely the image will not be uploaded at 601 pixels on its longest side. It would more than likely be either 800, 1024 or 2048 (or larger) on its longest side. Thus if I resample down that large an image, it would really soften the image so I apply a small amount of resharpening. If you are uploading an image that is 601, that isn't a realistic test other than to prove what I have said a bunch of times already. If you want to do your tests again, then do it on an image that is 1024 or 800 pixes on its longest side and see the quality difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

Okay, I tested it with a 800 pixel size image. Here is the original image at 600 pixels that I resized on my own computer:



Here is the image that I uploaded that was the exact same image, but I had it sized at 800 pixels high when I uploaded it. I then copied it to my computer from the Portfolio:



As you can see there is a fantastic difference. The photo as resized by GG looks grossly oversharpened. You can see this around the eyes, the copyright notice, the beads, and the overall tonality of the photo. The resized photo is a very poor representation of the original. This is exactly what I see in hundreds of photos that are posted by people to the GG portfolio.

Now granted, if you are on a 1280 x 960 or higher resolution, you don't see nearly as many of the over sharpening artifacts. But since the majority of viewers are still on 1024 x 768, you really see a huge difference. So please view the above two photos on 1024 x 768 so you can get the full impact of the problem.

NOTE: One of the flaws in doing auto sharpening when you resize, is that most glamour photos are meant to be somewhat softer than normal images. So when you sharpen and image that has been softened it really makes the image look like the person posting it didn't know what they were doing. I still think a pop up warning would be a good stop-gap solution.

Cheers,
rfs

Try your test again. I just tweaked the sharpening a bit more. I think during one of my long night editing sessions I removed a decimal point which causes a bit of oversharpening under certain parameters.

[R_Fredrick_Smith]

Photo 1 is the original uploaded at 600 pixels.
Photo 2 is the one uploaded at 800 pixels, and resize before you made the change.
Photo 3 is the one just uploaded at 800 pixels after you made the latest change:

Photo 1


Photo 2


Photo 3


That's a remarkable improvement. Also note that the size went from 28534 bytes to 46764 which I suspect indicates that the JPG quality is now higher than the previous setting you were using.

Cheers,
rfs