Website Compression issues

[Scott330ci]

Evening Chaps

I am having a few issues with my clikpic site.

Here ...

www.flickr.com/scottwmccormack

The images look sharp and great, couldnt be happier.

But my job is in jeopardy and I need to keep my eyes peeled so I have revamped my site to appeal to a broader market (I like to think).

So I have made a start here ...

www.scottmccormack.co.uk

Problem is the images look awful. Fuzzy, compression issues I assume but it is the same image only approx 800 pixels across?

Any Suggestions?

Thanks

Scott

[Yellabelly]

Scott not sure that I am getting the compression problems, when looking at your clikpic site, but they do look dark and all being mono gives it a dark and sombre feel. A touch of colour would help, IMHO, also it would add more interest if you were to give some detail about the image, otherwise it is just a n other photo.
Also the thumbnails are rather small

HTH

YB

[andy-xr]

How do you access the internet at the moment? Ie, ADSL, cable, 3G etc?

[Scott330ci]

broadband 6mbps

If you open both links and open both photos then flick between "I" can see the difference?

The brightness looks OK to me but it could be my monitor.

Re. text, I can't be arsed adding any whilst I am still unsure about the quality.

It might be just me.

[cottonfoo]

I can't find any at a cursory glance that are the same sizes on both sites, so it looks to be an artifact of resizing them - or it might even be that clikpic apply some compression to uploaded images. I can see some artifacts around the lamp in 'Walkway' that don't appear on the Flickr version.

EXIF data has been stripped from Romford-9893.jpg too, but that may have been you for all I know.

[Yellabelly]

Scott, just a thought, have you resized the photos to the clikpic recommended <800 pixels on the longest side? If not then that is likely to be the compression problem where they resize them for you.

YB

[dilbert]

Scott330ci said:

Evening Chaps

I am having a few issues with my clikpic site.

Here ...

www.flickr.com/scottwmccormack

The images look sharp and great, couldnt be happier.

But my job is in jeopardy and I need to keep my eyes peeled so I have revamped my site to appeal to a broader market (I like to think).

So I have made a start here ...

www.scottmccormack.co.uk

Problem is the images look awful. Fuzzy, compression issues I assume but it is the same image only approx 800 pixels across?

Any Suggestions?

Thanks

Scott

It always amazes me that people who take great pictures, don't seem to understand the technology they use.
I could tell you how the thing works to the most minute detail, but my pictures are always crap!

The problem you have is that the larger image on your new site, has less actual information in it, than the small one on the Flickr site.

Just look at the numbers on the file sizes, and you will see.

I suspect that you have resaved an original JPEG image. JPEG image quality will usually (but not always) deteriorate, each time you save it. When you download your pictures from the camera, in raw, or jpeg, convert them immediately to something lossless like PNG. Then when you wish to publish them, you can do so directly as PNG, or indirectly by converting them to JPEG.

Even using this strategy your image will have been saved as jpeg twice if you publish jpeg files. For this reason it is better to have you camera generate raw, and then convert raw to png. This way when you finally save as jpeg, it will be the first time the picture has ever been saved as jpeg.

Usually jpeg save, will offer options as to the level of compression you apply. Personally I would not recommend jpeg as any kind of format for mastering images. It is only useful for distribution.

[horacethefrog]

dilbert said:

The problem you have is that the larger image on your new site, has less actual information in it, than the small one on the Flickr site. Just look at the numbers on the file sizes, and you will see.

Spot on Delbert, 50k for an 800px wide image isn't very much. I save similar sized images at medium compression on my own site and they are three times that size.

dilbert said:

I suspect that you have resaved an original JPEG image. JPEG image quality will usually (but not always) deteriorate, each time you save it.

Whilst this is true I don't think it has any relevance here. If a sensible level of compression is being used, i.e. medium or better, you would have to save many times before any noticeable degredation were observable. There are plenty of experiments published on the net that evidence this. In this case the level of compression appears so high that even a RAW file saved that way would appear poor quality.