Home » Your Groups » Frequently Asked Questions » How does one get the very best image quality on Purpleport? I am Totally confused!

How does one get the very best image quality on Purpleport? I am Totally confused!

12345678NextLast

 

Digitalelegance

By Digitalelegance, 1429040507

I am always searching for the highest image resolution / quality.

Does anyone know the solution? And or even how it works ?

OK when you add an image, there is a 2MB limit. And its a fussy 2MB limit. In Canon's DPP or Photoshop it may be 1.99 MB but it turns out to be 2.01 MB on Purpleport's system ( and it gets rejected )

Then there is the 900 pixel wide limit - [before it is resized].  I am assuming any resizing degrades image quality, due to a) Purpleports compression engines and b) the second or subsequent save always degrades an image albeit marginally.

This 900 pixel wide without resizing rules is also unclear. How does this work? Say you have an image in Portrait  mode; then you could have 900 wide by 1,350 high. [ = 1.2 M pixels approx ]

Or if in Landscape mode one could have 900 wide by 600 high.  [ 0.54 M pixels approx ] If this is the case, then the Portrait mode shots will have a better image Quality. i.e more pixels.

But is this how it works [ before resizing kicks in ] or is the rule in reality 900 pixels on the longest side; be it in Portrait or Landscape mode?

Then it gets tricky..... Which is it better to do, stick to the 900 wide mode or go for 1.999MB version and risk resizing? This could increase the above Landscape IQ as one might get 2,200 x 1,466 pixels  [ thats approx 3.2 M pixels ] - provided it was just under 2.0 MB File size

And finally, which would actually look better,  more but compressed pixels or the lower 900 pixel wide version without reduction/compression?

I can't find this info anywhere, apologies if its somewhere .

I am just puzzled that we Togs spend thousands of £s upgrading cameras and lenses to get a higher resolution and then have to Display the results on the best Modelling site in the UK in a low grade resolution no better than the naffest mobile phone screen quality?? ( excluding the new iPhone 6 Plus screen etc. )

Any help from Purpleport Admin on this point would he most appreciated.

Thanks

AndyWilson said, 1429040866

It's 900px on the longest side isn't it?

You'd have to be pushing it a little bit to create a jpeg over 2Mb at that size...

Stolenfaces said, 1429041078

It is what it says 900 across the top - 2Mb is a massively unnecessary for a web display of 900px across.

Use Save for web in PS (to automatically change to SRGB) and see the preview I douby that you will see the difference between most 1.99 Mb uploaded and 250Kb - try it.

The quality of displays which are used to view images on internet sites is nothing like what you seem to think it is. This makes most of your logic incorrect.

Edited by Stolenfaces

MattB said, 1429041078

AndyWilson said

It's 900px on the longest side isn't it?


No, 900px width (so in theory it can be as tall as you like).

I think the best approach is to resize it yourself (to 900px wide), then you have the control over the resizing that is done. Unless you think that the server's resizing is better than yours (unlikely).

Stolenfaces said, 1429041453

AndyWilson said

It's 900px on the longest side isn't it?

You'd have to be pushing it a little bit to create a jpeg over 2Mb at that size...


No it's 900 across, but yes to part 2

In portrait 900px X 1350px = 1.215 Mb as a tiff !!

Edited by Stolenfaces

Edited by Stolenfaces

PBTPhoto said, 1429041147

I just export at 2046KB (just under 2MB) and let the site does its worst...which isn't bad at all.

 

Skymouse Productions said, 1429041224

Yup, as far as I know the advice has always been not to exceed 900 width (otherwise the image will be resized and recomprssed after you upload it, and that will reduce the quality.)

I've never seen PP staff mention the height as a factor, so I would just resize it down to 900 wide and let height end up whatever it ends up.

 

Petesky said, 1429041307

Most of mine are around 250k when i resize them to 900 px across and they look pretty crap!

I wish they could let us upload pics still under 2MB but maybe with a better pixel count.

Black Rose Studio said, 1429041359

I created a PurplePort export setting in LightRoom - has saved me hours of time. 900px wide and sharpening boosted a touch

SparkeyB said, 1429041769

During my editing process for any pics I edit I keep the PSD file from Photoshop - I save a full resolution JPG for me, Flickr and/or Models use - If I then require a version for Purpleport I then save another JPG version with the quality reduced so that the saved filesize is just under 2mb - all my pictures on my port were created like this and I believe that IMHO they look OK....

I guess its very similar to what  @i4E

Edited by SparkeyB Photography

Secret Boudoir said, 1429041784

just resize your image to 900px on the longest width then all your pictures are consistent in size, use least compression if you really feel the need to have your images load slower (remember people view on mobile devices and webmaster is doing a great job in making it responsive for mobile devices) also bare in mind the huge amount of bandwidth the site will use, serving this amount of data will be expensive for the site, so using slightly more compression is a good idea and won't really degrade the image too much, personally I think 900px on the wide side is a great compromise for site design, image display and the various viewing platforms... you can always direct people to your own site if you feel the need to display huge images

Edited by The Ginger Twins

ANHPhoto said, 1429045929

I just export from light room and set the "limit file size" to 1.9mb. Full resolution ready for models, yet digestable by PP, and let the site do it's worst with resizing. I think it generally does very well for web presentation.

When I set the file size export limit to 1.9mb as a jpeg, they normally come out around 1.5mb.

Stolenfaces said, 1429046057

Here's two different sizes upoloaded - Both have been resized to 900 px across the top. Both are save as JPGs. One is quality High and come in at 175kb  The other is quality Max and comes in at 628KB (both converted to SRGB).

Can you tell any difference ? can you tell which one is 4 times the file size of the other ?

If you click on each one they will open in new windows so that you can compare them easier

Edited by Stolenfaces

Orson Carter said, 1429047051

Digitalelegance said


...I am just puzzled that we Togs spend thousands of £s upgrading cameras and lenses to get a higher resolution and then have to Display the results on the best Modelling site in the UK in a low grade resolution no better than the naffest mobile phone screen quality?? ( excluding the new iPhone 6 Plus screen etc. )

Thousands of pounds? Really?

My procedure... Shoot on Canon 450D; process in DPP (don't have PS); save at 900mp; sharpen as necessary; upload.

 

Steve 1 said, 1429052482

I use DPP, copy it from raw to jpeg at 1000 pixel on its longest side and keeping the quality to the max

Steve 1 said, 1429052624

Stolenfaces said

Here's two different sizes upoloaded - Both have been resized to 900 px across the top. Both are save as JPGs. One is quality High and come in at 175kb  The other is quality Max and comes in at 628KB (both converted to SRGB).

Can you tell any difference ? can you tell which one is 4 times the file size of the other ?

If you click on each one they will open in new windows so that you can compare them easier

Edited by Stolenfaces


top ones the largest file!

12345678NextLast