# Toni's Dragon Emperor



## edstreet

This is somewhat of a testing thread and mostly discovery so ...

After much testing and some learning on my part I have made a few discoveries.  I am essentially testing a few theories that I have.


----------



## johncrane

Ed if your just showing of the blanks in a certain position the 3rd photo look Awesome,
maybe turn the cap the otherway,by the way its a fantastic looking pen.


----------



## edstreet

From the original images there is serious color compression, loss of detail, less colors and flat. 

The original image has a 3D effect to every one of them, not here.   I am betting it is the photo setting the site is using.

If you pull this image up and compare it to the one on IAP you will see the differences.


----------



## johncrane

Ok Ed i can see now what your testing.


----------



## randyrls

Ed;  A JPG file is a compressed file.  Every time it is edited and saved whether by image editing software (you) or a system that processed the image, detail is lost.  Kind of like making a copy, of a copy, of a copy, etc.  Eventually it shows up in loss of detail, blurry lines, jaggies, and other "artifacts".  If you want a pristine photo, use TIF, or other loss-less image format.  Keep the original and any high quality photos in a format that doesn't compress the image on save.  PNG is a good image format for the web but you will have to check to see if the photo system keeps it in that format.


----------



## brownsfn2

I think if you do the photos as attachments it will work better.  As Randy said it is a compression issue.  Detail is lost and I think that the compression setting on the site can be different from the photo editing software you might be using.  Also it would be different than Facebook as well.  

This pen still wows me when I see it.


----------



## edstreet

This is attached via png.





This is the earlier attachment I did from post #1





This is an offsite hosting from facebook.





This is my personal image gallery hosting.  I run the site and have full control over everything.





Notice how the lower barrel is sharp, in focus and the detail on the highlights on my site and facebook image yet on the top 2, hosted here on IAP, that image section is not even in focus.

The site converts to jpg and even more data is lost than before. The problem I think is not that the file is a jpg but the image quality is not set to 100% on uploads.  They appear to be closer to 60-70% image quality.  Yes these images are set at attachments.

The epic frustration is when you spend hours coming up with a layout, comp and format to get some really good 3D effects only to have a hefty chunk discarded, the tragedy is many will not see the detail that has been lost.


----------



## Bean_Counter

I suggest a different site since this one is not good enough for you


----------



## brownsfn2

Does it look different if I upload to IAP as an attachment?  Here is the thumb below.  You need to click on it to open fully.


----------



## edstreet

The discoveries that I mentioned in post #1 is new methods of getting photo's that shows some astounding level of details.  There are a great number of details that I see in objects that are not being picked up in images and I have found a few methods to capture some of those.


----------



## edstreet

brownsfn2 said:


> Does it look different if I upload to IAP as an attachment?  Here is the thumb below.  You need to click on it to open fully.
> 
> View attachment 100721



Yes.

The sparkle highlights in both blanks is missing. there is a color shift.  there is more zone 1 and zone 2 in the clip reflection, the perl texture is  missing in both blanks.  Also the image is flat and has lost most of the 3D effects.


----------



## brownsfn2

I thought that uploading it as an attachment would look different but maybe not.  I will need to pay attention to my photos more.  I did not notice the difference.

Of course the storage resources of the IAP are vastly different than that of Facebook or third-party image hosters.  Also there are limits and charges for extra bandwidth.  I am sure if there are compression settings on the photos that they are there in an attempt to save resources and make the site affordable to run.  I don't think that is a bad thing.  I mean this is a user supported site after all. 

If I was using this site to sell pens I might be more concerned.

Interesting to see though.  Thanks for sharing.


----------



## edstreet

Limits are indeed fine, bandwidth, viewing size etc. can all be set and changed as needed.  Some sites I post on has a small size, a medium size and a large size depending on the end users monitor setting.  The images gets resized accordingly but you can still view the original size if you wanted.  I am also not opposed to doing the classified type setup for me to post images here either.  I first noticed there was something odd going on when I started on this project about a year or so ago but was not quite able to put my finger on it.  I also realize there is a huge difference in compression settings and image quality.

On this set I was up till 4-5am making them


----------



## jeff

OK Ed, you reported this post and asked for my comments. What exactly would you like to know?


----------



## edstreet

jeff said:


> OK Ed, you reported this post and asked for my comments. What exactly would you like to know?



Few post back I mentioned some problems with details being lost etc.  I am not sure what I am doing wrong or if it is a site setting.  Also can you tell us what the image quality and all of that is set to, if possible that is.

I am not trying to cause trouble or make waves or anything like that. 

Also would it be better if I were to start doing some type of classified type arrangement on post I make like this?


----------



## jeff

edstreet said:


> jeff said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK Ed, you reported this post and asked for my comments. What exactly would you like to know?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Few post back I mentioned some problems with details being lost etc.  I am not sure what I am doing wrong or if it is a site setting.  Also can you tell us what the image quality and all of that is set to, if possible that is.
> 
> I am not trying to cause trouble or make waves or anything like that.
> 
> Also would it be better if I were to start doing some type of classified type arrangement on post I make like this?
Click to expand...


Image quality is a complex topic as you know. It has dependencies in browser type and configuration, CSS, and the backend toolkit (we use GD as it's bundled with PHP, but ImageMagick is a viable alternative some people prefer)

I know know offhand what the compression is set at in GD. About the only experiment I could offer would be to turn off image resize and let you try it. 

Don't know what you mean by "classified type arrangement"


----------



## jeff

I temporarily turned off image resizing if you want to play with that. The images should be stored just as you upload them, provided they are within the size limits and the filesize limits.


----------



## edstreet

Ok. Will ado some testing when I get home.


----------



## beck3906

I don't know, but you may need to get....
1.  A better camera system
2.  Better photo editing software 
3.  A better blank 
:biggrin:


----------



## Toni

beck3906 said:


> I don't know, but you may need to get....
> 1.  A better camera system
> 2.  Better photo editing software
> 3.  A better blank
> :biggrin:



Are you kidding???????????

A better blank, I would like to see you make a better blank than that.


----------



## MesquiteMan

Toni said:


> beck3906 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but you may need to get....
> 1.  A better camera system
> 2.  Better photo editing software
> 3.  A better blank
> :biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding???????????
> 
> A better blank, I would like to see you make a better blank than that.
Click to expand...


I guess you missed the big :biggrin:


----------



## Toni

MesquiteMan said:


> Toni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beck3906 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but you may need to get....
> 1.  A better camera system
> 2.  Better photo editing software
> 3.  A better blank
> :biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding???????????
> 
> A better blank, I would like to see you make a better blank than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I guess you missed the big :biggrin:
Click to expand...


must have


----------



## edstreet

Have several photographers helping me.  Bear with me on this but will be uploading something soonish.


----------



## edstreet

Try this.

IAP attachment





This is via my gallery






same image via facebook.





I see a color shift for starters.  In every image there is major detail missing.  We had to remove detail to comply with the file size constraints. the size limit allows approx 60% image quality retention.

for example.  How much sparkle do you see in the image?  Very little.


----------



## jeff

OK, Ed. Just because I'm a good sport, I've temporarily raised the file size to 1 meg and increased the maximum dimensions to 960px in both directions.

EDIT: However, I have to say that I can't see any difference between those photos. Perhaps I don't know where/how to look, or I need glasses or a better monitor.


----------



## Dan Masshardt

I was wondering why your pens always have so many flaws.  KIDDING!!!


I wouldn't have noticed the issues with the picture hosting, but your black circles in the first post do point them out well. 

At the end of the day, It seems to me (read: personal opinion!) that to for the purposes of of sharing our pen designs with each other - not potential customers - it doesn't matter very much.   

Your pens look great.  Your photos are excellent - even with the flaws that show up in the transfer, they are better than many others posted her including all of mine.  

If there would be a simple change to make that would remedy the 'problem' it would make sense to do it, but...


----------



## Smitty37

Toni said:


> Are you kidding???????????
> 
> A better blank, I would like to see you make a better blank than that.


 Well Toni, I can't make a better blank than that ---- but you sure can.  I've looked at a lot of your blanks - which are all fantastic - but I liked many of them more than this one.


----------



## Lenny

First of all, that's a very nice pen! 

As far as scrutinizing the subtle differences between the photos goes, I'm afraid you are beating your head against the wall. Unless everyone who uses the Internet starts routinely calibrating their monitors with a device like Spyder, there will always be differences in any given image from monitor to monitor.


----------



## edstreet

Dan Masshardt said:


> I was wondering why your pens always have so many flaws.  KIDDING!!!
> 
> 
> I wouldn't have noticed the issues with the picture hosting, but your black circles in the first post do point them out well.
> 
> At the end of the day, It seems to me (read: personal opinion!) that to for the purposes of of sharing our pen designs with each other - not potential customers - it doesn't matter very much.
> 
> Your pens look great.  Your photos are excellent - even with the flaws that show up in the transfer, they are better than many others posted her including all of mine.
> 
> If there would be a simple change to make that would remedy the 'problem' it would make sense to do it, but...



One of the reasons that I do like to post is to help inspire others to do better quality work.  We all see and share stories of low quality things all day and it seems to be more of the norm than not and I hope that they do things like that.  

As for flaws, everything has flaws. Personally I like to show them as that is one of the ways to inspire better work, more solutions and new techniques.

In the grand scheme of things for the most part it really does not matter much.  However some areas, i.e. product compare, blanks, methods, results and the like is where things really pick up greatly.



jeff said:


> OK, Ed. Just because I'm a good sport, I've temporarily raised the file size to 1 meg and increased the maximum dimensions to 960px in both directions.
> 
> EDIT: However, I have to say that I can't see any difference between those photos. Perhaps I don't know where/how to look, or I need glasses or a better monitor.



That to is what the big topic is with me.  The #1 thing that everyone has said they have to zoom in some to see the image better so instead of say 800x600 perhaps 1024x768 maybe or something like that perhaps.  The 1 meg is likely to large. The largest I can come up with at 960x is bit shy of 500k

Some of the details are lost if you will be I think that is more from the size.  The reason many sites have lower resolutions, file size limits and the like is to keep the server from being junked up with junk.

This is what I was initially thing of may be some type of subscription service like the classified section is setup, $x per post or something like that.  That would help with storage/bandwidth and what not.  After all photo's like this does have serious marketing potential with it.


What we did:
I took the master image in RAW format at 240 PPI (pixels per inch) 
Then I did my tweaking of whatever; in my case we did clarity and contrast, some ever so slight level adjustments, EXIF info like copyright information, author, remove some dust and spots in the background areas.
Then since the original was in 240 PPI resize the image to 800, then export to web and tinker with things until the size criteria was met.


---
These shots are 960x and under 1 meg each.  They are also done in jpg mode and not raw mode.











As for the 'better blanks' goes. I would have to say proof is in the pudding.  Show me, lead by example.  Point me in the direction as I am starving for eye candy and am always looking for things to put under my camera lens.


----------



## edstreet




----------



## brownsfn2

If you guys have any of those extra "bad blanks" can you send one to me?  I will dispose of it properly.


----------



## Dan Masshardt

Ed - did you turn those beads?


----------



## edstreet

Dan Masshardt said:


> Ed - did you turn those beads?



No I did not. Toni made those some time ago and I am not sure how they were done.

The smaller ones are color changing.  Meaning a bright white light tent with a 500 w/s monolight going off they look light in color.  

Here is how they look next to buffalo skin.


----------



## jyreene

Ed - Post #24 with all the photos from different sites does show a difference. It took me about 30 minutes of starring at all of them to find them. With that said would it really matter that much unless you were really trying to show something special? I could see if you wanted to show something special or get help with something specific but those would be special cases. As for sales, I do agree the best photo should be the one presented to really show off the work. However, what I have done (when asked for better photos) is send the customer a better photo if requested. It's usually the original that I took without site limitations (not talking about here but the site I use in general).

Toni - Awesome blank. Seeing yours has gotten me trying PC...It's fun but man there is a lot to learn! I'll show my results in a separate thread (well my PITH partner will).

Also I really think we need an internationally recognized sarcasm font! Or this:
8 New and Necessary Punctuation Marks - CollegeHumor Article


----------



## jeff

So, Ed, is the server still altering the photos?  Wasn't that the issue?


----------



## edstreet

jeff said:


> So, Ed, is the server still altering the photos?  Wasn't that the issue?



Honestly I do still see some things changing still but not as bad as before.  I have been  testing various images to see what it is and so far it appears not to be the upload but the displaying in the threads. If you open the attachment by itself the size is different and with out the colorshift.  It might be on my account/browser and am going to try it with various monitors and see what they show.

The changes made has been a big improvement and for that I do appreciate it and thank you.


----------



## edstreet

jyreene said:


> Ed - Post #24 with all the photos from different sites does show a difference. It took me about 30 minutes of starring at all of them to find them. With that said would it really matter that much unless you were really trying to show something special? I could see if you wanted to show something special or get help with something specific but those would be special cases. As for sales, I do agree the best photo should be the one presented to really show off the work. However, what I have done (when asked for better photos) is send the customer a better photo if requested. It's usually the original that I took without site limitations (not talking about here but the site I use in general).
> 
> Toni - Awesome blank. Seeing yours has gotten me trying PC...It's fun but man there is a lot to learn! I'll show my results in a separate thread (well my PITH partner will).
> 
> Also I really think we need an internationally recognized sarcasm font! Or this:
> 8 New and Necessary Punctuation Marks - CollegeHumor Article




30 minutes?  I have for the most part been working to capture many aspects of pens that I see.  I have been able to capture a good deal more with the new format that I have been working with and very good coverage of what I see before/when I take the shots.

It is like taking a pen and you see certain aspects on it like highlights, glitter, shimmering colors and the like.  Holding the pen they stand out easily but capturing that on image is a whole new game.


----------



## jyreene

edstreet said:


> 30 minutes?  I have for the most part been working to capture many aspects of pens that I see.  I have been able to capture a good deal more with the new format that I have been working with and very good coverage of what I see before/when I take the shots.
> 
> It is like taking a pen and you see certain aspects on it like highlights, glitter, shimmering colors and the like.  Holding the pen they stand out easily but capturing that on image is a whole new game.



I can be slow. It finally hit when I reread the entire thread. Color. I was looking for digital remnants or noise and finally saw the color difference. I'm still new to a lot of aspects of photography but I did finally see that one! So yes 30 minutes. Artistic things take me a long time to get. 

In person I bet there is a world of difference and wish I could hold it to compare but I do understand the difference even with my own pens.

Thanks for showing this stuff Ed.


----------



## edstreet

jyreene said:


> edstreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 30 minutes?  I have for the most part been working to capture many aspects of pens that I see.  I have been able to capture a good deal more with the new format that I have been working with and very good coverage of what I see before/when I take the shots.
> 
> It is like taking a pen and you see certain aspects on it like highlights, glitter, shimmering colors and the like.  Holding the pen they stand out easily but capturing that on image is a whole new game.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can be slow. It finally hit when I reread the entire thread. Color. I was looking for digital remnants or noise and finally saw the color difference. I'm still new to a lot of aspects of photography but I did finally see that one! So yes 30 minutes. Artistic things take me a long time to get.
> 
> In person I bet there is a world of difference and wish I could hold it to compare but I do understand the difference even with my own pens.
> 
> Thanks for showing this stuff Ed.
Click to expand...


Color is one part but also digital remnants as well.  One big area was every bit of the glitter was gone.


----------



## jyreene

I'll keep looking. Could be my monitor as well. I've got a new laptop and I have to dial in the settings.


----------



## edstreet

jyreene said:


> I'll keep looking. Could be my monitor as well. I've got a new laptop and I have to dial in the settings.



Try this.  This is my gallery2 site that I maintain.

The dragon emperor by Toni Ransfield

Then do F11, that puts browser in full screen mode. click on the first image. that does largest view.

Then above the image on the right side is next image and last time.  Click next image.  Scroll thru there as some of them are in this thread.  Then look at the same images posted here.  It really helps to have 2+ monitors.


----------



## LL Woodworks

Toni said:


> beck3906 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but you may need to get....
> 1.  A better camera system
> 2.  Better photo editing software
> 3.  A better blank
> :biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding???????????
> 
> A better blank, I would like to see you make a better blank than that.
Click to expand...


You Tell Him Toni     This loss of detail thing is alo prevelent when trying to photograph a pen made with a M3 blank.  In your hand they look amazing, but you simply can't photograph the depth and detail; at least not with the setups 90% of us use to photograph pens.  One of the mysteries of life I guess.


----------



## jyreene

Will do thanks Ed. I'm off to some meetings so it will be some time before I get to do this but it is on my list of things to do today.


----------



## beck3906

Toni knows I admire her work... I've bought several of them and probably need to look at buying more.  That's if she'll let me now.  :biggrin:


----------



## Justturnin

Toni said:


> beck3906 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but you may need to get....
> 1. A better camera system
> 2. Better photo editing software
> 3. A better blank
> :biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding???????????
> 
> A better blank, I would like to see you make a better blank than that.
Click to expand...

 

Note to self, never, ever, under any circumstance, ever ever ever ever ever ever joke about Toni's blanks :biggrin:


----------



## edstreet

LL Woodworks said:


> You Tell Him Toni     This loss of detail thing is alo prevelent when trying to photograph a pen made with a M3 blank.  In your hand they look amazing, but you simply can't photograph the depth and detail; at least not with the setups 90% of us use to photograph pens.  One of the mysteries of life I guess.



I did not know that M3's were like that as well.  That is one blank I have yet to see, use, etc.  I will put it on my list for my next order.  I should be able to get some magic from that, I hope.


----------



## Toni

beck3906 said:


> Toni knows I admire her work... I've bought several of them and probably need to look at buying more.  That's if she'll let me now.  :biggrin:



I DIDNT SEE THE SMILE FACE!!!! Of coarse I will sell to you




Justturnin said:


> Toni said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> beck3906 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know, but you may need to get....
> 1. A better camera system
> 2. Better photo editing software
> 3. A better blank
> :biggrin:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Are you kidding???????????
> 
> A better blank, I would like to see you make a better blank than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Note to self, never, ever, under any circumstance, ever ever ever ever ever ever joke about Toni's blanks :biggrin:
Click to expand...


Hey I have been told I live on the Dark side of turning, must have been my evil twin that typed that yesterday:biggrin:  You can joke!!


----------



## jeff

edstreet said:


> jeff said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Ed, is the server still altering the photos?  Wasn't that the issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly I do still see some things changing still but not as bad as before.  I have been  testing various images to see what it is and so far it appears not to be the upload but the displaying in the threads. If you open the attachment by itself the size is different and with out the colorshift.  It might be on my account/browser and am going to try it with various monitors and see what they show.
> 
> The changes made has been a big improvement and for that I do appreciate it and thank you.
Click to expand...


If you do a checksum on the file you upload and the file the server delivers, are they the same? As far as I can tell, the way I have it set for your tests, the server is not processing the image at all. It's uploaded and stored as-is. It should be identical. byte for byte.


----------



## PedroDelgado

I would think that a heavy Image compression has to be applied to all uploaded files. Can you imagine the storage capacity required for everyone's images? HUGE!!!


----------



## edstreet

PedroDelgado said:


> I would think that a heavy Image compression has to be applied to all uploaded files. Can you imagine the storage capacity required for everyone's images? HUGE!!!



Yes I can.  This is one of the reasons why I pick what I feel is very good subject matters to post.  I try not to post things average, mundane and the like.  However, if something is of educational in value, descriptive of a process/technique/method/what not, things higher end, good quality and the like then I see that as a very good step forward and something worthy of the increase.



jeff said:


> edstreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jeff said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, Ed, is the server still altering the photos?  Wasn't that the issue?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Honestly I do still see some things changing still but not as bad as before.  I have been  testing various images to see what it is and so far it appears not to be the upload but the displaying in the threads. If you open the attachment by itself the size is different and with out the colorshift.  It might be on my account/browser and am going to try it with various monitors and see what they show.
> 
> The changes made has been a big improvement and for that I do appreciate it and thank you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you do a checksum on the file you upload and the file the server delivers, are they the same? As far as I can tell, the way I have it set for your tests, the server is not processing the image at all. It's uploaded and stored as-is. It should be identical. byte for byte.
Click to expand...



The files seem to be the same which means that it is possibly something like CSS.  Also worthy of note is display on HH's is less drastic of a change in the previously posted versions, as from desktops.  

Would it be worthwhile to do the resize to the 960x but leave image quality unchanged at 100?


----------

