Totally @#$&%&% frustrated :evil:

Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
Any help would be more than greatly appreciated!

This is my first post to this forum; I followed (tracked down) Uncle Frank from dpreview. I haven’t even stopped by the “New Members Introductions” or “spiffed up” my profile (e.g., avatar, gear, etc) yet. I figure my problem is “Technical” so here I am in this “sub”forum. Last night I was preparing to “make my debut” by uploading a few of my more recent images to my pbase account for sharing.

I ended up so danged frustrated that I’m about to forgo the pleasures of sharing with a larger more knowledgeable audience along with the chances to learn and improve through posting and sharing my images. My workflow is definitely targeted toward producing prints. After learning color management (uhg), buying and perusing 200-plus pounds of books and countless hours shooting my D70 and then working/playing in PS; I’ve reached a point where what I see on screen is pretty darn close to what comes out of my Epson 1280. Occasionally I may slightly boost color saturation before printing but all-in-all I’m a happy printer/camper. So it is usually after I’ve fine-tuned an image in PSCS for printing that I then think about web posting. I normally do the following to a flattened copy of the image:

1. Convert from my working Adobe RGB 1998 to sRGB.
2. Change from my working 300ppi to 72ppi.
3. Resize if necessary (e.g., to a max of 960 pixels for this forum).
4. Resharpen a little if needed (usually) or use the new “bicubic sharper” in PSCS when downsizing.
5. Save the image in JPEG format at “medium” quality.

As so often (usually) happens, I open the JPEG image in PS and it looks just peachy on my Spyder-calibrated eMac CRT screen. I upload it to my pbase account and I get a mess like you see below. The image looks like the Vaseline-on-glass (i.e., placed over the paper under the enlarger) prints I used to play with in my old B&W darkroom days. Other than the general blurriness, notice the heavy artifacts around the NY, bat and hands of the red-helmeted player. The print is crystal clear and sharp and again (frustratingly) the original JPEG version I uploaded looks pretty darn good on my screen.

I see so many wonderful, sharp, clear posts on this and other sites and I too would like to share my shots. But not if they come across looking like this… y’all might come to think I’m a lousy photographer! I would like viewers to see what I am seeing. I know, I know… all monitors are different etc., but something nasty is happening to my images during the posting process and it’s driving me bonkers.

Again, any help or suggestions would be more than greatly appreciated!. And then I can become an active (as my time allows), “relatively” knowledgeable and sharing Nikon Café member.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #2
OK, OK, the gods aren't smiling on me and thus made me forget the jpg. Let's see if the image shows up now.
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
35,321
Location
Arizona
Real Name
Chris
Hi Tom, Welcome to the Cafe!

Sorry you're having fits. I don't know what the pic looks like on your screen, but it really doesn't look that bad here. I too process on a eMac, and I think there is an issue in that combination that I have solved by using the Save as... command instead of the Save for Web ... dialog.

Then, I give it at least a 10 (out of 12) quality. I try for a 200K or more file size, and that seems to keep the artifacts minimized. Also Bicubic Sharper seems a bit too aggressive and may be emphasizing the shaggy look.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
Houston, TX
Make sure you don't let PBase recompress your originals. Also make sure your JPG's are no larger than 800 pixels in their largest dimension if you want people viewing the "large" image size to see the original image. If your image is larger than that, PBase will generate its own "large" version and quality will suffer.

I don't know what quality of JPG "medium" is, but in Photoshop I use a quality of 10. That seems to avoid artifacts and give reasonable filesizes.
 
K

Ken-L

Guest
Welcome to another northern Californian!

Weaverville! What a wonderful area to be with a camera!
 
Joined
May 20, 2005
Messages
4,010
Location
Youngsville (The edge of nowhere), North Carolina
Tom Quinn said:

1. Convert from my working Adobe RGB 1998 to sRGB.
2. Change from my working 300ppi to 72ppi.
3. Resize if necessary (e.g., to a max of 960 pixels for this forum).
4. Resharpen a little if needed (usually) or use the new “bicubic sharper” in PSCS when downsizing.
5. Save the image in JPEG format at “medium” quality.


There may be a k-size limit on pbase... I dunno, but I think you should use the Save For Web thing in PSCS regardless.

My workflow...

1. Resize to ppi dimension / 72 dpi
1. Convert to sRGB
2. Increase Saturation 5%
3. USM to taste
4. Save for Web and adjust slider to get in 10k under your k-size limit.

What I see on my OMP port is exactly what I see on my eMac or Apple Cinema Display.

Woody
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
2,416
Location
Nanaimo, BC, Canada
Hi Tom

Andreas was having the same problem, and it turned out the images were fine, but his web browser was not. You need to look at your pbase photos on another computer to make sure that is not the problem.
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
2,761
Location
nowhere
Hi Tom,

You can open the jpg in Internet Explorer right on your computer, before uploading. Does it look different from uploaded to pbase?

You are using Macintosh. How is your system colour management set up?
 
Joined
May 11, 2005
Messages
17,640
Location
Chicago, IL
Hi Tom and Welcome,

Your image doesn't look bad on my monitor. It looks as though the sun was setting when that image was taken, so it appears to be a tad hot looking...but It's a great image with great composition (and great dirt).

When I first started to read your post...you seemed so upset, I thought that you were going to yell at us!!!
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #11
Chris101 said:
Hi Tom, Welcome to the Cafe!

I too process on a eMac, and I think there is an issue in that combination that I have solved by using the Save as... command instead of the Save for Web ... dialog.

Then, I give it at least a 10 (out of 12) quality. I try for a 200K or more file size, and that seems to keep the artifacts minimized. Also Bicubic Sharper seems a bit too aggressive and may be emphasizing the shaggy look.
Thank you Sir!
I always go the "Save as" route. I will try uping the quality to 10 and see if that makes a differance (I'm guessing that "medium" in my PS interface is in the 5-6 range, I'll check). I can't quite remember what if any post JPEG sharpening I did on this one (gettin' old and feeble minded). The thing that bugs me is that the darn thing looks good on my screen prior to posting.
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #12
there's N. Caliifornia and then thers's N. California

Ken-L said:
Welcome to another northern Californian!

Weaverville! What a wonderful area to be with a camera!
Yes, Trinity County (including Weaverville) is a truely great place to live and photograph. There is not one stop light in the entire Trinity County portion of northern California. Kinda like your portion :lol:
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #13
Czechman01 said:
There may be a k-size limit on pbase... I dunno, but I think you should use the Save For Web thing in PSCS regardless.

My workflow...

1. Resize to ppi dimension / 72 dpi
1. Convert to sRGB
2. Increase Saturation 5%
3. USM to taste
4. Save for Web and adjust slider to get in 10k under your k-size limit.

What I see on my OMP port is exactly what I see on my eMac or Apple Cinema Display.

Woody
Thanks for the reply;
Chris, who also works off an eMac, suggested avoiding the "Save for Web" option and going with "Save as". To be honest I have never tried the SfW; but I will certainly follow up on your suggestion. I deffinitely want to get back to the land of WYSIWYG.
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #14
hillrg said:
Hi Tom

Andreas was having the same problem, and it turned out the images were fine, but his web browser was not. You need to look at your pbase photos on another computer to make sure that is not the problem.
Well, as I said, I certainly admire many of the images posted on this forum while viewing from my home eMac as well as from work on an IBM with a Dell LCD monitor. My posted images look crappy on both. Additionally, I mailed the image I posted above to my work and it still looks crappy (at least in my, albeit critical, opinion as compared with how the original JPEG looks).
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #15
Iliah said:
Hi Tom,

You can open the jpg in Internet Explorer right on your computer, before uploading. Does it look different from uploaded to pbase?

You are using Macintosh. How is your system colour management set up?
I'll have to try looking at it in Explorer as you suggest, if I can find it (I've been using Apple's Safari since my last OS upgrade). If it does or doesn't look differant what is that telling me? BTW, I had the same problems when using Explorer.

As for how my system color management is set up (as related to the internet or pbase, etc.) I really don't have a clue. That is honestly "black box" stuff to me. I assume that Colorsync et al. does its magic. I have Adobe PS manage color in my print workflow.
 
Joined
Apr 21, 2005
Messages
3,625
Location
Houston, TX
I personally dislike Save for the Web, it seems to be an awful lot of overhead for very little value. It amazes me that SfW doesn't even convert to sRGB for you. And of course it strips away your EXIF info which I prefer to leave intact. I also found it to be very slow.
 
Joined
May 27, 2005
Messages
399
Location
Weaverville, California
  • Thread Starter Thread Starter
  • #17
eng45ine said:
Hi Tom and Welcome,

Your image doesn't look bad on my monitor. It looks as though the sun was setting when that image was taken, so it appears to be a tad hot looking...but It's a great image with great composition (and great dirt).

When I first started to read your post...you seemed so upset, I thought that you were going to yell at us!!!
Yes the sun was setting. Ya know, I did play with the temperature (K) settings while it was still in NEF, but decided I liked the warm tone (what do you mean hot,... indeed :? ). I was framing to keep the catcher in frame with the player stealing home. It was a past ball and as the play developed he flipped the ball to the charging pitcher. The pitcher's glove at the left edge was a lucky bonus.

I wasn't so upset as I was frustrated. Well, not so frustrated as I was annoyed. Well, not so annoyed as I was perturbed. Well, not so perturbed....... OK, OK, actually you're right, I was upset. I can take my photography relatively seriously at times and loath putting less than my best foot forward.
 

Latest posts

Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom