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

Teaboy Productions said

And let's not lose sight of the fact that both the browser and the monitor are going to do their best to mess around with what you upload anyway... anyone who has fought safari vs chrome colour profiling will know what I mean! The most common monitor resolution is currently 1366x768, which is going to be mostly laptops not retina studio displays, so that extra 2% isn't going to make much difference most of the time. That's the tech, not PP!

Teaboy Productions said

And let's not lose sight of the fact that both the browser and the monitor are going to do their best to mess around with what you upload anyway... anyone who has fought safari vs chrome colour profiling will know what I mean! The most common monitor resolution is currently 1366x768, which is going to be mostly laptops not retina studio displays, so that extra 2% isn't going to make much difference most of the time. That's the tech, not PP!

Yep there seems to be quite difference in displaying colour on my laptop Microsoft Viewer or DPP and again on an iPad Air, and on my frieds expensive Calibrated Monitor.

given up worrying about it as there is no budget to solve that! At least the images are in RAW so I could solve it in the future!

If you want complete control of how it going to look then resize your image to the correct size before uploading. I always sharpen the image before scaling it down, I find this will affect the look of the image far more than trying to get the maximum dimensions or file size. If the image is portrait I tend to go with 1080 high, too high and no one can view the whole image and have to scroll to see it. Always export in PS using Save To Web, srgb checked and quality around 80 (jpg), don't think I've ever done anything more than 500k! I've got a PS action that sharpens, shrinks and put my logo on but brings up prompts if I need to tweak anything.

Thanks Terry very useful.

For PP, I've always resized to 900px x 900px with a 2mb file size limit in Lightroom, seems I might be missing a trick and should adjusting my sizing depending on orientation... 

Glad you asked this.. 

What resolution in LR ? 

Digitalelegance said

 

The general consensus is the limiting factor is 900 wide, be it Landscape or Portrait.

I did ask admin, as the replies here had inconsistent views. Their answer was basically anything wider than 900 wide would be resized. They didn't answer if in Potrait mode, if it was 900 wide and therefore 1350 high; as 1350 was greater than their 900 limit would there be any degredation due to their compression engine.

So I replied and asked them to be specific. Awaiting the answer.

I am not being pedandic here, until now I was resizing down to 1.99 MB in a vain attempt to deliver the best image quality possible. Its a pain doing it this way, as one has to guess the nearest pixel width in DPP4.3 and it might come out as 1.99 MB in DPP4.3 but refuse to load in Purpleport; as it says its say 2.01MB.

I was also puzzled that my small images looked good on my 17" monitor or the new iPad Air II, but when I looked at them on Purpleport they looked crap, a bit fuzzy and lacked the POP on the skin tones. So it seemed reduction in DPP4.3 really didnt hurt the image too much looking at it on my devices, but Purpleports reducer/compression engine significantly degraded the image.

Having placed an advance order for the 5DS R, 50 MPS, I thought I'd look into it. 

My conclusion so far, but needs verification by a field test comparison and the reply due from Admin. ; is if my software reduces the image to 900 wide it will look better than if Purpleports system resizes it, and of course the limit seems to be 900 wide - but just on the width.

Sadly that means on the web my pictures taken by the 5D3 and soon to be the 5DS R will look no better than those taken with my Old 7D, and likewise the lens upgrade from a 70-300L to the 70-200F2.8 L II will also not be reflected in a better IQ. 

Well thats a leveller eh, but I suppose its a model website,  not a photographic technical forum.

The good news is my workflow is easier just set DPP4 to 900 wide and thank you. (As it would never hit 2 MB)

regards

Peter

They have been specific in the FAQs and several people (who have both read the FAQs and have actual experience) have replied here. How many times do you want them and us to tell you ?

Obviously it is better if you resize yourself, as you can then control all the parameters rather than letting PP use their algorithm, which may do better or worse with a particular photo.

You obviously completely misunderstand the whole concept of resolution and websites. Manufacturers do not sell you high or very high resolution cameras so that your out of camera web size photos will be noticeably better than smaller sensor cameras. When you start with more information you have many more ways that the photo may be edited (including cropping to a small portion of the original photo). The more information you capture, the more you can throw away in editing. If you only capture a photo at 900 x 1350 then you will have very little scope for editing. In general if you are only interested in producing shots for display on the web and viewing by the general public on their normal devices, then you don't need a big sensor, 6Mb is way more than you need, and 4Mb would probably be adequate. A good mobile phone camera is way over the top

A 900px by 1350px is already too big for most people to view without scrolling, so what does displaying something bigger achieve ?

If you are printing photos, most printers expect 300dpi (or slightly higher) to achieve maximum quality. With my 35Mpx D800 I can happily produce an A4 photo for litho printing if I crop a landscape photo into portrait (it needs to be 2480 px across the top, the camera produces 7360px on long side)

If your photos on pp are not showing properly you are doing something wrong, people have shared their methods, (and most people will find using 'resize' to 900px across the top followed by 'save for web' in PS to be the best method for single shots)

I link my photos to PP using a Flickr account. I was of the understanding that the quality remained if you did that.

Davel Photography UK said

I link my photos to PP using a Flickr account. I was of the understanding that the quality remained if you did that.

I think you are importing them from flickr. If your photos are bigger than 900px across on Flickr they will be automatically downsized in the same way as uploading from your computer hard disk (or facebook). 

The 900 px across maximum is stated on the screen you use to upload an image. It is unambiguous.

Edited by Stolenfaces

Stolenfaces said

Davel Photography UK said

I link my photos to PP using a Flickr account. I was of the understanding that the quality remained if you did that.

I think you are importing them from flickr. If your photos are bigger than 900px across on Flickr they will be automatically downsized in the same way as uploading from your computer hard disk (or facebook). 

The 900 px across maximum is stated on the screen you use to upload an image. It is unambiguous.

Edited by Stolenfaces

Ah I see. Thanks Stolenfaces :)

There are so many combinations of viewing devices and browsers along with over bright screens, and different website outputs.... It's impossible to have an image displayed how it should look anywhere, especially at 900px.

I would worry less about the file size and quality of your resizing process because you'll never be happy regardless of what formula for exporting you settle on.

Stolenfaces said

Digitalelegance said

 

The general consensus is the limiting factor is 900 wide, be it Landscape or Portrait.

I did ask admin, as the replies here had inconsistent views. Their answer was basically anything wider than 900 wide would be resized. They didn't answer if in Potrait mode, if it was 900 wide and therefore 1350 high; as 1350 was greater than their 900 limit would there be any degredation due to their compression engine.

So I replied and asked them to be specific. Awaiting the answer.

I am not being pedandic here, until now I was resizing down to 1.99 MB in a vain attempt to deliver the best image quality possible. Its a pain doing it this way, as one has to guess the nearest pixel width in DPP4.3 and it might come out as 1.99 MB in DPP4.3 but refuse to load in Purpleport; as it says its say 2.01MB.

I was also puzzled that my small images looked good on my 17" monitor or the new iPad Air II, but when I looked at them on Purpleport they looked crap, a bit fuzzy and lacked the POP on the skin tones. So it seemed reduction in DPP4.3 really didnt hurt the image too much looking at it on my devices, but Purpleports reducer/compression engine significantly degraded the image.

Having placed an advance order for the 5DS R, 50 MPS, I thought I'd look into it. 

My conclusion so far, but needs verification by a field test comparison and the reply due from Admin. ; is if my software reduces the image to 900 wide it will look better than if Purpleports system resizes it, and of course the limit seems to be 900 wide - but just on the width.

Sadly that means on the web my pictures taken by the 5D3 and soon to be the 5DS R will look no better than those taken with my Old 7D, and likewise the lens upgrade from a 70-300L to the 70-200F2.8 L II will also not be reflected in a better IQ. 

Well thats a leveller eh, but I suppose its a model website,  not a photographic technical forum.

The good news is my workflow is easier just set DPP4 to 900 wide and thank you. (As it would never hit 2 MB)

regards

Peter

They have been specific in the FAQs and several people (who have both read the FAQs and have actual experience) have replied here. How many times do you want them and us to tell you ?

Obviously it is better if you resize yourself, as you can then control all the parameters rather than letting PP use their algorithm, which may do better or worse with a particular photo.

You obviously completely misunderstand the whole concept of resolution and websites. Manufacturers do not sell you high or very high resolution cameras so that your out of camera web size photos will be noticeably better than smaller sensor cameras. When you start with more information you have many more ways that the photo may be edited (including cropping to a small portion of the original photo). The more information you capture, the more you can throw away in editing. If you only capture a photo at 900 x 1350 then you will have very little scope for editing. In general if you are only interested in producing shots for display on the web and viewing by the general public on their normal devices, then you don't need a big sensor, 6Mb is way more than you need, and 4Mb would probably be adequate. A good mobile phone camera is way over the top

A 900px by 1350px is already too big for most people to view without scrolling, so what does displaying something bigger achieve ?

If you are printing photos, most printers expect 300dpi (or slightly higher) to achieve maximum quality. With my 35Mpx D800 I can happily produce an A4 photo for litho printing if I crop a landscape photo into portrait (it needs to be 2480 px across the top, the camera produces 7360px on long side)

If your photos on pp are not showing properly you are doing something wrong, people have shared their methods, (and most people will find using 'resize' to 900px across the top followed by 'save for web' in PS to be the best method for single shots)

 

Stolenfaces said

Digitalelegance said

 

The general consensus is the limiting factor is 900 wide, be it Landscape or Portrait.

I did ask admin, as the replies here had inconsistent views. Their answer was basically anything wider than 900 wide would be resized. They didn't answer if in Potrait mode, if it was 900 wide and therefore 1350 high; as 1350 was greater than their 900 limit would there be any degredation due to their compression engine.

So I replied and asked them to be specific. Awaiting the answer.

I am not being pedandic here, until now I was resizing down to 1.99 MB in a vain attempt to deliver the best image quality possible. Its a pain doing it this way, as one has to guess the nearest pixel width in DPP4.3 and it might come out as 1.99 MB in DPP4.3 but refuse to load in Purpleport; as it says its say 2.01MB.

I was also puzzled that my small images looked good on my 17" monitor or the new iPad Air II, but when I looked at them on Purpleport they looked crap, a bit fuzzy and lacked the POP on the skin tones. So it seemed reduction in DPP4.3 really didnt hurt the image too much looking at it on my devices, but Purpleports reducer/compression engine significantly degraded the image.

Having placed an advance order for the 5DS R, 50 MPS, I thought I'd look into it. 

My conclusion so far, but needs verification by a field test comparison and the reply due from Admin. ; is if my software reduces the image to 900 wide it will look better than if Purpleports system resizes it, and of course the limit seems to be 900 wide - but just on the width.

Sadly that means on the web my pictures taken by the 5D3 and soon to be the 5DS R will look no better than those taken with my Old 7D, and likewise the lens upgrade from a 70-300L to the 70-200F2.8 L II will also not be reflected in a better IQ. 

Well thats a leveller eh, but I suppose its a model website,  not a photographic technical forum.

The good news is my workflow is easier just set DPP4 to 900 wide and thank you. (As it would never hit 2 MB)

regards

Peter

They have been specific in the FAQs and several people (who have both read the FAQs and have actual experience) have replied here. How many times do you want them and us to tell you ?

Obviously it is better if you resize yourself, as you can then control all the parameters rather than letting PP use their algorithm, which may do better or worse with a particular photo.

You obviously completely misunderstand the whole concept of resolution and websites. Manufacturers do not sell you high or very high resolution cameras so that your out of camera web size photos will be noticeably better than smaller sensor cameras. When you start with more information you have many more ways that the photo may be edited (including cropping to a small portion of the original photo). The more information you capture, the more you can throw away in editing. If you only capture a photo at 900 x 1350 then you will have very little scope for editing. In general if you are only interested in producing shots for display on the web and viewing by the general public on their normal devices, then you don't need a big sensor, 6Mb is way more than you need, and 4Mb would probably be adequate. A good mobile phone camera is way over the top

A 900px by 1350px is already too big for most people to view without scrolling, so what does displaying something bigger achieve ?

If you are printing photos, most printers expect 300dpi (or slightly higher) to achieve maximum quality. With my 35Mpx D800 I can happily produce an A4 photo for litho printing if I crop a landscape photo into portrait (it needs to be 2480 px across the top, the camera produces 7360px on long side)

If your photos on pp are not showing properly you are doing something wrong, people have shared their methods, (and most people will find using 'resize' to 900px across the top followed by 'save for web' in PS to be the best method for single shots)

 

Actually they were not really specific in the FAQs because they only mentioned the width. I am a member of other sites that Do care about the height as well, on these if either dimension exceeds 1024 it gets resized. 

As for needing to be told numerous times by people who are doing it. If you read all the replies a few had a conflicting views. 

Admin have now confirmed the height is irrelevant. Its just the width that counts. So I am totally convinced there is no point in having bigger images, as they will only be resized with a less efficient compression engine than I have. And thus despite being uploaded with hreater pixels will look worse.

If you think about the logic of limiting file sizes, its only really their to control their investment in servers, so its a little bit illogical not to say implement a max size on the longest side. Hence my persistence in finding out all the facts.

Sometimes the devil is in the detail. :) and thus I wanted to be thorough. 

Digitalelegance said

If you think about the logic of limiting file sizes, its only really their to control their investment in servers, so its a little bit illogical not to say implement a max size on the longest side. Hence my persistence in finding out all the facts.

Sometimes the devil is in the detail. :) and thus I wanted to be thorough. 

I would disagree. Images that are substantially bigger than a full screen browser window are a nuisance to view. They don't add to the viewing experience, they detract from it.

Not wishing to give an uninvited critique of your portfolio, but I feel that browser image quality due to resolution issues is not your principal weakness or something that undermines your output.

Digitalelegance said

Stolenfaces said

Digitalelegance said

 

The general consensus is the limiting factor is 900 wide, be it Landscape or Portrait.

I did ask admin, as the replies here had inconsistent views. Their answer was basically anything wider than 900 wide would be resized. They didn't answer if in Potrait mode, if it was 900 wide and therefore 1350 high; as 1350 was greater than their 900 limit would there be any degredation due to their compression engine.

So I replied and asked them to be specific. Awaiting the answer.

I am not being pedandic here, until now I was resizing down to 1.99 MB in a vain attempt to deliver the best image quality possible. Its a pain doing it this way, as one has to guess the nearest pixel width in DPP4.3 and it might come out as 1.99 MB in DPP4.3 but refuse to load in Purpleport; as it says its say 2.01MB.

I was also puzzled that my small images looked good on my 17" monitor or the new iPad Air II, but when I looked at them on Purpleport they looked crap, a bit fuzzy and lacked the POP on the skin tones. So it seemed reduction in DPP4.3 really didnt hurt the image too much looking at it on my devices, but Purpleports reducer/compression engine significantly degraded the image.

Having placed an advance order for the 5DS R, 50 MPS, I thought I'd look into it. 

My conclusion so far, but needs verification by a field test comparison and the reply due from Admin. ; is if my software reduces the image to 900 wide it will look better than if Purpleports system resizes it, and of course the limit seems to be 900 wide - but just on the width.

Sadly that means on the web my pictures taken by the 5D3 and soon to be the 5DS R will look no better than those taken with my Old 7D, and likewise the lens upgrade from a 70-300L to the 70-200F2.8 L II will also not be reflected in a better IQ. 

Well thats a leveller eh, but I suppose its a model website,  not a photographic technical forum.

The good news is my workflow is easier just set DPP4 to 900 wide and thank you. (As it would never hit 2 MB)

regards

Peter

They have been specific in the FAQs and several people (who have both read the FAQs and have actual experience) have replied here. How many times do you want them and us to tell you ?

Obviously it is better if you resize yourself, as you can then control all the parameters rather than letting PP use their algorithm, which may do better or worse with a particular photo.

You obviously completely misunderstand the whole concept of resolution and websites. Manufacturers do not sell you high or very high resolution cameras so that your out of camera web size photos will be noticeably better than smaller sensor cameras. When you start with more information you have many more ways that the photo may be edited (including cropping to a small portion of the original photo). The more information you capture, the more you can throw away in editing. If you only capture a photo at 900 x 1350 then you will have very little scope for editing. In general if you are only interested in producing shots for display on the web and viewing by the general public on their normal devices, then you don't need a big sensor, 6Mb is way more than you need, and 4Mb would probably be adequate. A good mobile phone camera is way over the top

A 900px by 1350px is already too big for most people to view without scrolling, so what does displaying something bigger achieve ?

If you are printing photos, most printers expect 300dpi (or slightly higher) to achieve maximum quality. With my 35Mpx D800 I can happily produce an A4 photo for litho printing if I crop a landscape photo into portrait (it needs to be 2480 px across the top, the camera produces 7360px on long side)

If your photos on pp are not showing properly you are doing something wrong, people have shared their methods, (and most people will find using 'resize' to 900px across the top followed by 'save for web' in PS to be the best method for single shots)

 

Stolenfaces said

Digitalelegance said

 

The general consensus is the limiting factor is 900 wide, be it Landscape or Portrait.

I did ask admin, as the replies here had inconsistent views. Their answer was basically anything wider than 900 wide would be resized. They didn't answer if in Potrait mode, if it was 900 wide and therefore 1350 high; as 1350 was greater than their 900 limit would there be any degredation due to their compression engine.

So I replied and asked them to be specific. Awaiting the answer.

I am not being pedandic here, until now I was resizing down to 1.99 MB in a vain attempt to deliver the best image quality possible. Its a pain doing it this way, as one has to guess the nearest pixel width in DPP4.3 and it might come out as 1.99 MB in DPP4.3 but refuse to load in Purpleport; as it says its say 2.01MB.

I was also puzzled that my small images looked good on my 17" monitor or the new iPad Air II, but when I looked at them on Purpleport they looked crap, a bit fuzzy and lacked the POP on the skin tones. So it seemed reduction in DPP4.3 really didnt hurt the image too much looking at it on my devices, but Purpleports reducer/compression engine significantly degraded the image.

Having placed an advance order for the 5DS R, 50 MPS, I thought I'd look into it. 

My conclusion so far, but needs verification by a field test comparison and the reply due from Admin. ; is if my software reduces the image to 900 wide it will look better than if Purpleports system resizes it, and of course the limit seems to be 900 wide - but just on the width.

Sadly that means on the web my pictures taken by the 5D3 and soon to be the 5DS R will look no better than those taken with my Old 7D, and likewise the lens upgrade from a 70-300L to the 70-200F2.8 L II will also not be reflected in a better IQ. 

Well thats a leveller eh, but I suppose its a model website,  not a photographic technical forum.

The good news is my workflow is easier just set DPP4 to 900 wide and thank you. (As it would never hit 2 MB)

regards

Peter

They have been specific in the FAQs and several people (who have both read the FAQs and have actual experience) have replied here. How many times do you want them and us to tell you ?

Obviously it is better if you resize yourself, as you can then control all the parameters rather than letting PP use their algorithm, which may do better or worse with a particular photo.

You obviously completely misunderstand the whole concept of resolution and websites. Manufacturers do not sell you high or very high resolution cameras so that your out of camera web size photos will be noticeably better than smaller sensor cameras. When you start with more information you have many more ways that the photo may be edited (including cropping to a small portion of the original photo). The more information you capture, the more you can throw away in editing. If you only capture a photo at 900 x 1350 then you will have very little scope for editing. In general if you are only interested in producing shots for display on the web and viewing by the general public on their normal devices, then you don't need a big sensor, 6Mb is way more than you need, and 4Mb would probably be adequate. A good mobile phone camera is way over the top

A 900px by 1350px is already too big for most people to view without scrolling, so what does displaying something bigger achieve ?

If you are printing photos, most printers expect 300dpi (or slightly higher) to achieve maximum quality. With my 35Mpx D800 I can happily produce an A4 photo for litho printing if I crop a landscape photo into portrait (it needs to be 2480 px across the top, the camera produces 7360px on long side)

If your photos on pp are not showing properly you are doing something wrong, people have shared their methods, (and most people will find using 'resize' to 900px across the top followed by 'save for web' in PS to be the best method for single shots)

 

Actually they were not really specific in the FAQs because they only mentioned the width. I am a member of other sites that Do care about the height as well, on these if either dimension exceeds 1024 it gets resized. 

As for needing to be told numerous times by people who are doing it. If you read all the replies a few had a conflicting views. 

Admin have now confirmed the height is irrelevant. Its just the width that counts. So I am totally convinced there is no point in having bigger images, as they will only be resized with a less efficient compression engine than I have. And thus despite being uploaded with hreater pixels will look worse.

If you think about the logic of limiting file sizes, its only really their to control their investment in servers, so its a little bit illogical not to say implement a max size on the longest side. Hence my persistence in finding out all the facts.

Sometimes the devil is in the detail. :) and thus I wanted to be thorough. 

Try uploading an image and reading the instructions, they are specific (as have been most people who have posted here including me). 

"900 pixels wide maximum - Anything less will not be resized, anything more will be resized."

If you understand English, it is specific and unequivocal. 

The logic of limiting file sizes is that this site is for the display of photos not for storage (there are plenty of places for that).

As has been pointed out by many people, most viewers can not get a 900px wide photo to display full-size on their device.

The problem is that there is little point in examining the trees if you can't see the wood, or even know what a wood is.

In Photoshop I change res to 72dpi and save for web (copy) and never had any issues and quality is fine.