# my quality goes down after resizing???



## LandfillLumber (Feb 16, 2009)

Hello, my wood photos are getting worse after I resize them to post on the iAP.Its very important when selling wood to get as much detail as possible.I just posted box elder burl for sale and my photos before resizing are pretty good showing all the nice eyes/figure.After the resizing I lose this very important detail to my photos???Any suggestions??Thank you everyone,Victor


----------



## rjwolfe3 (Feb 16, 2009)

I have been curious myself, Victor, I hope someone can help.


----------



## maxwell_smart007 (Feb 16, 2009)

Could you just post a link to photobucket or something like that which will show the full sized picture?  

I don't know if this is allowed: I don't read the classified rules, as I don't sell, but if it is allowed, that might be your best option.


----------



## marcruby (Feb 16, 2009)

Could just be that you're not making the shot at your best resolution.  Could be that you're not resizing the best way (assuming that your resizing with some desktop software).  Very little image manipulation can cause significant loss of detail if you don't do it right.

Make sure, if you are resizing an image that you keep resolution at 72 bits per inch.  That's standard screen resolution for most of the known universe - set the size you want, then set the resolution.  If you're saving as a jpeg then make sure you opt for highest quality.  I looked at one of your ebay pics and the file is only 20K.  That's low.  Some go down to as little as 6K - that's horrible.  I noticed that Paint doesn't let you set jpeg quality, which isn't good either.

If you want you can email me some of the shots and I'll look at them.  PM me and I'll give you my email address if you don't have it already.

Marc


----------



## MDWine (Feb 16, 2009)

Look at the tool you are using to resize your photo.  Tools like Photoshop and such will allow you to fix the compression rate to keep a picture's quality.  Basic resizing software probably won't have this feature.


----------



## Art Fuldodger (Feb 16, 2009)

Yeah, post a link to a before and after shot.  I took a look at some of the pictures you've posted recently.  Some look fine, some look very soft.  The interesting part is that I don't see artifacts like I'd expect from too high of a compression ratio, normally being soft after sizing it down means that the original was even more soft.  But let's look before and after to be sure.


----------



## LandfillLumber (Feb 17, 2009)

Hello, thank you everyone a link for two pics that have been resized.Thank You,Victor
http://s118.photobucket.com/albums/o82/landfilllumber/pic test/


----------



## LandfillLumber (Feb 17, 2009)

Seem the quality only goes down when its put on the IAP site.I see no difference in the pics in my photobucket,what am I doing wrong???Thank You,Victor


----------



## marcruby (Feb 17, 2009)

Actually, when I checked the images you posted they weren't all that sharply focused when you took the pictures so you do have a camera/photographer issue.  Aside from that - As I understand it the IAP software seems to run some sort of additional compression on jpeg files when you upload them, which can take a slightly fuzzy shot and make it blurrier.  I try to upload right at the size limit, and that seems to work best.

Marc


----------



## devowoodworking (Feb 17, 2009)

marcruby said:


> As I understand it the IAP software seems to run some sort of additional compression on jpeg files when you upload them


 
I'm pretty sure that's the issue right there...


----------



## gketell (Feb 17, 2009)

The maximum image size allowed is 800x600 so if your images are bigger than that then the IAP software will auto-resize them down and it isn't generous in how it does it.

Some of the "resizing" software you can get/use is also not kind to the photos.  Do a search on IAP for "resizing software" and you should get lots of pointers to good software.  Sorry I can't help but I use a mac and iPhoto does a wonderful job all by itself.  I just select 800 as maximum dimension and medium quality jpeg as output and I get awesome pictures that are usually less than 100KB.

Good luck.
GK


----------



## Daniel (Feb 17, 2009)

I've noticed that and finally just gave up bothering with it. I put photos I want people to be able to see well and in detail on my web site and put links to that page here. Photography is hard enough without throwing the computer into it to mess it up at every turn. I have some great photos that for one reason or another end up looking lousy. and even If I spend all the time figuring out how to correct all that each individual has there computer monitor set up differently. the computer I have at work is really dark so even really good photos look bad on it. Bottom line is there is no way to make sure your great photos will look great to anyone else.


----------



## gketell (Feb 17, 2009)

Absolutely true, Daniel!!


----------



## jeff (Feb 17, 2009)

gketell said:


> The maximum image size allowed is 800x600 so if your images are bigger than that then the IAP software will auto-resize them down and it isn't generous in how it does it.
> 
> Some of the "resizing" software you can get/use is also not kind to the photos.  Do a search on IAP for "resizing software" and you should get lots of pointers to good software.  Sorry I can't help but I use a mac and iPhoto does a wonderful job all by itself.  I just select 800 as maximum dimension and medium quality jpeg as output and I get awesome pictures that are usually less than 100KB.
> 
> ...


Greg hit it right on... A few notes, for what they're worth.

If you upload an image with max dimensions less than 800x600, the resizer won't touch it. For those unable or unwilling to resize prior to uploading, no problem, but you have to live with what the standard server image tools (GD in this case) provide.

You can't upload a jpg over 100k - the server doesn't attempt to resize, it just rejects your upload.

It's possible to post beautiful photos at 800x600 under 100k, which it why those limits were chosen.

If you want to get around these limits by hosting a photo elsewhere and putting a LINK to it in your post, that's fine. Don't host a huge photo somewhere then put it in image tags, that screws up the thread display and your post may be deleted. Also, if you move or delete a hosted image leaving a broken image or a dead link, your post will probably be deleted.

The best solution is to take good photos, resize correctly to 800x600 under 100K, and post.


----------



## marcruby (Feb 17, 2009)

Thanks Jeff;

As I said, I usually just set the output dpi to 72 and a width of 6".  Then I set the quality to get a file close to the limit.  That seems to skirt the problem entirely.

Marc


----------



## devowoodworking (Feb 17, 2009)

marcruby said:


> As I said, I usually just set the output dpi to 72 and a width of 6". Then I set the quality to get a file close to the limit.


 
So...back to the original question...you still have to reduce the 'quality' from the original...:wink:


----------



## LandfillLumber (Feb 18, 2009)

Hello, I'm resizing with fotosizer that meaquiteman suggested.He helped me figure out how to resize as I'm what you call computer stupid.Marc ya some of my photos are bad but even the good ones lose the sharpness after being put on the IAP.I know it something I'm doing so I just need to figure it out.Thank everyone for the help.Victor


----------



## marcruby (Feb 18, 2009)

devowoodworking said:


> So...back to the original question...you still have to reduce the 'quality' from the original...:wink:



If I didn't you could play table tennis on the image.  Jeff would probably be peaked if I kept linking to 100 meg files.

Marc


----------



## marcruby (Feb 18, 2009)

Vic;

I just tried fotosizer - I've attached to shots.  The first is a 92k original file that triggered the IAP compression routine that took it down to 18K, the other I did using fotoziser, making the short measurement 288 (about 4") and setting quality to 100 percent.  To me the IAP compression is very slightly better than fotosizer.  Neither looks as good as the original, which is here:

http://www.penturners.org/photos/index.php?n=1894

Compare the fine line decoration to see the difference.

Did your camera come with some kind of imaging program?  It look to me like you would be better off with that.

Marc


----------



## LandfillLumber (Feb 18, 2009)

Marc thank for going through the trouble to show we all thta.I will have to look at my camera stuff to see what I have with,I know I should know if I have the software or not,LOL.I will get it all figured out someday,HAHA.Victor


----------



## DurocShark (Feb 19, 2009)

Hmm... Here's a test.

This photo is hosted on my own server:






And here's the exact same file uploaded. Note that it is smaller than the limits. Just seeing if there's a difference in quality when the resizer isn't activated.


----------



## DurocShark (Feb 19, 2009)

Interesting... The first click display *IS* resized, but it still doesn't look bad. Second click of course shows the full file and that looks fine.


----------



## gketell (Feb 19, 2009)

To make it easier to compare them...











They look good to me.
GK


----------



## DurocShark (Feb 19, 2009)

Even perfectly captured the black wedgie in the corner. LOL!


----------

