Fuzzy Photos

[john flann]

I produce good quality sharp images that are accepted for publication in the model railway press.

 

Yet here when posted they appear fuzzy.

 

On my own screen they are sharp.

 

What is the reason for that, and I might add it's disappointing to see my images presented in this manner.

 

This problem seems only to have arisen fairly recently.

 

[Guest oldlugger]

I agree John; my images always look very washed out on here, yet the originals are colourful and nicely contrasty. Even if I over compensate in photo editing with extra saturation, etc, they look flat and lifeless.

 

Cheers

Simon

[john flann]

Hi Simon, it appears that only you and I are concerned about the quality of their presented images on this Forum.

 

I take pains over mine and it is very disappointing:-

 

a, they are seen in such a manner, and

 

b, no one in authority has responded to my post and our concerns.

[Guest Celticwardog]

I wonder if it's because they are compressed when uploaded to save space on the servers? Can't moan too much really the site is free after all.

[martin_wynne]

Hi Simon, it appears that only you and I are concerned about the quality of their presented images on this Forum.

 

Hi John,

 

I tried to respond ( I'm not in authority -- who is? ) but I couldn't find any of your fuzzy photos and you didn't provide any links.

 

It's most likely that no-one else is seeing them fuzzy. You didn't say which browser, or what device, you are using (desktop PC, laptop, tablet, phone).

 

If you are using Firefox on a system with the screen set to 120dpi, try pressing CTL+MINUS twice.

 

If you are uploading very large image sizes for RMweb to auto-resize, try resizing them yourself first. RMweb has an online editor for that, see: http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/76953-how-to-compress-photos-so-i-can-upload-them/&do=findComment&comment=1179839

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[DaveF]

I am generally satisfied with the appearance of my images both in the relevant forum and my gallery.

 

It could be the way they are prepared for uploading, depending on whether the original file is simply reduced in size by saving at a lower quality before uploading or whether the image is resized - I generally use a horizontal dimension of 1,200 to 1,500 pixels for images I upload here, wheras for publication in a magazine the image would be around 3,000 pixels horizontally or larger.

 

If I forget to resize and simply reduce the quality then the uploaded image looks terrible and I have to replace it.

 

David

[john flann]

David, you are fortunate then. And i have read the comments of others. None change my opinion that the images I have recently been posting appear fuzzy, although on my screen they are sharp.

 

It seems pointless to continue this thread and I will say no more on the subject.

 

Thank you for the interest shown, though I had to make a provocative comment to achieve it.

[jonhall]

David, you are fortunate then. And i have read the comments of others. None change my opinion that the images I have recently been posting appear fuzzy, although on my screen they are sharp.

 

It seems pointless to continue this thread and I will say no more on the subject.

 

Thank you for the interest shown, though I had to make a provocative comment to achieve it.

 

You still haven't provided an example of an image that you regard as sub-standard?

 

J

[martin_wynne]

It seems pointless to continue this thread and I will say no more on the subject.

 

Hi John,

 

It's your topic. But if you don't provide any links to the problem pictures, or say anything about your browser or system, or tell us anything about your image file sizes and compression levels, it's not surprising that no-one can offer any help.

 

Many pictures on RMweb do appear sharp and bright, so clearly it is possible to post pictures successfully. Here are a couple of mine uploaded now -- are these appearing fuzzy or dull on your screen? Both were taken on an overcast day.

 

 

 

They look fine here (in Firefox), the same as on my system -- viewing the post preview side by side with the original.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[Andy Y]

David, you are fortunate then. And i have read the comments of others. None change my opinion that the images I have recently been posting appear fuzzy, although on my screen they are sharp.

 

It seems pointless to continue this thread and I will say no more on the subject.

 

Thank you for the interest shown, though I had to make a provocative comment to achieve it.

 

Unfortunately I don't get chance/time to read every topic/post on here. As Martin said you didn't give anyone else much to go on. I've had a look at back-postings from you and I can't see anything seriously wrong so it's possible that you have some localised browser settings which are part of the issue. Is it just your photos that are fuzzy or are everyone else's?

[martin_wynne]

As an experiment, here is the same image uploaded in PNG format. This will eliminate any jpeg compression effects on the RMweb server. The file size is more than doubled, but still well under 1MB:

 

 

Martin.

[Oldddudders]

Martin's pics look fine to me. I posted some pics in the Loco Portraits thread last week, which I had reduced using the online Photo editor provided here. My original jpegs were close to 11MB (cheap 24mp DSLR) and I had to reduce them to less than 2MB to meet RMweb requirements, obviously, but am very happy with the results on here. I usually aim to have 1840 pixels in the long axis. When saving the reduced pic, there is a "quality" slider which I pull over to close to 100%, and this gives a file size of about 1.5MB.

[martin_wynne]

Hi John,

 

You mentioned that there was a recent change?

 

Are you sure that you are not using Firefox on a system where you have the screen set to 120dpi? This is now called "Windows Medium", and some laptops now set this as the default.

 

Firefox from version 23, unlike other browsers, is now rendering pages at 125% zoom on such systems, with the result that images are fuzzy and degraded. There is an outcry about this, but Firefox says it is the correct way to respect the system dpi setting. Other browsers are expected to follow suit when the dust settles.

 

To cure this problem, press CTRL+MINUS twice to zoom out to 80% which restores the previous view (80% x 125% = 100%). Firefox will remember this setting whenever you visit RMweb.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[john flann]

AndyY and Martin,

 

Thank you. I did not wish, nor do want to appear to be dis-courteous but this is getting beyond my knowledge and comprehension so before any response is made I need to discuss it with my son Nicholas, who knows far more about these mysteries than I.

 

May we, therefore, adjourn the discussion until next he is here-maybe later today.

 

Sincerely,

 

John.

[The Stationmaster]

Only just got to this thread but I certainly haven't noticed any of your pictures as 'fuzzy' John.  Anyway I have duly looked at the Hintock thread and the first two pics in it and the only things which are 'fuzzy' are the items which aren't in focus - a common situation which we all suffer from with model railway pictures without masses of added light or cameras which can't stop down far enough to create a depth of field which covers everything - none of that is unusual too me and on my 21" monitor the centre of focus of the pics is sharp.  the pannier pics on p.15 of your thread are sharp and the only bit of the M7 pics which isn't is some of the foliage on one side which looks a bit fuzzy but there could be all sorts of reasons for that, including fuzzy foliage of course.

 

But overall no problem at all your pics show up on my screen (21" Imac) without any fuzziness other than those areas of the original pic which weren't in sharp focus.

[shortliner]

John - if you are on a PC, do a search for JPEG Wizard. It allows a file size compression trade off against quality - reducing file size by half proiduces no obvious deterioration in quality when viewed at the maximum size set by the forum - I must be honest and say I haven't noticed "fuzziness" in your photos on windows, and I use 125% as a standard viewing size

Best

Jack

[martin_wynne]

Hi John,

 

When compressing camera images for the web, a good ball-park figure to aim for is in the region of 1500 to 2000 pixels per KB of file size. So for example an image 800 x 600 pixels = 480000 pixels would be compressed to say 300 KB, i.e. 1600 pixels per KB (300 x 1600 = 480000).

 

Here is one of your pictures copied from your post:

 

 

You uploaded it at 1920 x 1440 pixels = 2764800 pixels. At 1600 pixels per KB that would have given a file size of 1728KB. But you uploaded it at only 386KB -- which means you compressed the data in the image about to about 1/5th of the ideal. Or in other words you chucked away 80% of the image detail. It's not surprising that the result after RMweb resized it is not too brilliant. RMweb can only work with the data it is given. After RMweb resized it to 800 x 600 pixels, the image above is only 85KB, i.e. less than a third of the ideal.

 

You may not realise that you were uploading it so heavily compressed -- the software on your system may offer an auto setting for "web" or "email" images which is vastly more compressed than they are actually displayed on your system. Try to find an upload compression setting which preserves the file size as viewed.

 

I can't reinstate data which you didn't upload, but I have had a dabble at getting a better result. It is always better to resize the picture to 800 x 600 yourself with full control of the settings before uploading, rather than leave it to the auto-resize on RMweb.

 

I first rotated the image to bring the verticals upright -- the chimney and the signal post for example. Then I cropped it to 1600 x 1200 to remove some out-of-focus foliage and the distracting signal arm on the right. Finally I resized it to 800 x 600 pixels, setting the compression level to give a file size of about 300 KB (it turned out to be 328 KB).

 

This is the final image uploaded to RMweb:

 

 

For comparison here is the same image uploaded to my own web space for comparison. You can see that they are identical -- i.e. RMweb isn't changing it in any way:

 

 

I think there is some improvement -- here is your original again for comparison:

 

 

Had you uploaded it without the excessive compression I feel sure a much better result would have been possible.

 

regards,

 

Martin.

[john flann]

Very helpful Martin, now let me digest it.

 

Sincerely,

 

John.

[Bernard Lamb]

I would suggest Picassa to anybody who finds the technical part of sizing photos for the web difficult.

No need to know any theory. Just use the default resize.

Resize and export to a folder and all your photos for posting are in one place leaving your originals intact.

Not had a problem and other people who use it also seem to be happy with it.

Bernard

[Kenton]

Will someone post a "fuzzy" image? I don't understand what one looks like - perhaps they are all fuzzy and I have not noticed my eys need retesting.

 

Some images do seem to take a long time to load - I have always assumed this to be my download speed and the oversized files - while they are loading they often appear as incomplete.

[The Stationmaster]

Will someone post a "fuzzy" image? I don't understand what one looks like - perhaps they are all fuzzy and I have not noticed my eys need retesting.

 

Some images do seem to take a long time to load - I have always assumed this to be my download speed and the oversized files - while they are loading they often appear as incomplete.

As far as I interpret the term this photo includes 'fuzzy' - i.e. some elements of it are not in focus (in this case - e.g the loco in the tunnel or the loco and greenery at extreme top right of frame) or have been rendered fuzzy by compression (not the case here)

 

 

However in the case of this one it has become fuzzy and lost definition even where it was properly focussed as a result of excessive compression

 

[Kenton]

Thanks, in the first is that not a depth of focus issue. I thought fuzzyness was a result of camera shake or subject movement. I can see that over compression will result in pixel depth and also render the same "movement/loss" of focus.

[The Stationmaster]

Thanks, in the first is that not a depth of focus issue. I thought fuzzyness was a result of camera shake or subject movement. I can see that over compression will result in pixel depth and also render the same "movement/loss" of focus.

Yes - it is a depth of focus issue in the first one Kenton hence it being one possible cause of fuzziness (as in some of the OP's pics where some objects at the edge are similarly out of focus).  And yes also get it from camera shake (I have examples, alas ) although that should be noticeable on a computer screen before posting whereas what the OP was concerned about seems to be something different and possibly to do with compression after posting although the sharp parts of his photos (which is basically almost all of all of them) is perfectly sharp on other monitors including mine but not - it seems - his.

[john flann]

Quite right Mike and thank you for your interest in this, depth of focus is not the issue with me, what concerned me as you rightly discerned was that parts of the displayed image were not in sharp focus. 'Fuzzy' seemed an appropriate word to describe it.

 

Interestingly enough, or not , I have found if a 'fuzzy' image in part is up when right clicked and examined in detail the area of fuzziness disappears and the image is completely sharp-and very satisfactory. The detail is there.

 

If an image has any faults such as down to camera shake or the like it gets deleted-so never posted.

 

The outcome of all this is, I think, and out of Martin's tutorial, thank you Martin, that for the best results on RMweb submitted images should be no larger than 800x600. 

[The Stationmaster]

Quite right Mike and thank you for your interest in this, depth of focus is not the issue with me, what concerned me as you rightly discerned was that parts of the displayed image were not in sharp focus. 'Fuzzy' seemed an appropriate word to describe it.

 

Interestingly enough, or not , I have found if a 'fuzzy' image in part is up when right clicked and examined in detail the area of fuzziness disappears and the image is completely sharp-and very satisfactory. The detail is there.

 

If an image has any faults such as down to camera shake or the like it gets deleted-so never posted.

 

The outcome of all this is, I think, and out of Martin's tutorial, thank you Martin, that for the best results on RMweb submitted images should be no larger than 800x600. 

Interesting John.  Provided they are taken from an 'original' (i.e. as downloaded from the camera JPEG) I always post images up to a maximum of 1600 width by 1200 high and set the size at as near to 550kb as I can get.  Thus the tunnel mouth pic above is at that size although the other one isn't as it was compressed in the camera just after taking in order to save memory and hence it won't enlarge when you click on it although the other one will.  I usually enlarge the pics on your thread as I look at them and indeed all my earlier comments on your pics are based on looking at the enlarged images.  

 

But a lot depends on your original downloaded image size as Martin has said, and of course the original setting on the camera (both of mine are set to 10 megapixels although the image sizes are different because of the way the camera's electronics resolve and save the detail while the lens also makes a difference as well).