I have been using Topaz Gigapixel to downsize my work enough to post in the forums but recently it seems to have trouble getting my files reduced below 2.0 mb
Best Downsizing procedures to post photos on BC Forums????
- Thread starter Highbow
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
There is Lightroom Preset posted in the help. Honestly so many great images here are seen as fuzzy with direct posting due to the downsizing, but they do show in the recents and liked galleries. I have been linking from imgbb and others link from other sites. The photos are sharper but don't show up in the recents and liked.
The file size also depends on the quality setting/amount of compression for the jpeg. From Photoshop using file/export as does it in a snap. Just set the pixel dimensions desired, click convert to srgb and imbed profile. The quality slider is top right and you see it reflected in the approx file size in mb top left. Just use as high a quality as you can that stays under the 2 mb.
I'm curious which ones look fuzzy, etc. the max width is now like 2000px wide, which is fairly high res for web use and nearly twice what instagram recommends. In addition, the forum itself is only 1400px wide, so once you have borders and such, 1200px should be enough. I'd like to track that issue down if I could.
Also, all photos posted in the presentation forums will always show in the most liked and recent galleries, regardless of if they are hosted here or not. It's only those forums and only the first photo of a new post.
@Steve - compare a linked image of your choice but leaving at full size say jpg quality 10 with one you downsize using your preset.
I was just looking at this post on my 2021 16" MBP. They look like great shots but not entirely sharp. I don't think your preset was used but rather downsized to meet the megapixel size. You can probably tell.
Are Lance's images linked? They seem sharper.
I could be off base on this but some images snap and some don't. @NorthernFocus and I discussed this over his Pelican Dive series.
I was just looking at this post on my 2021 16" MBP. They look like great shots but not entirely sharp. I don't think your preset was used but rather downsized to meet the megapixel size. You can probably tell.
Are Lance's images linked? They seem sharper.
I could be off base on this but some images snap and some don't. @NorthernFocus and I discussed this over his Pelican Dive series.
You can set size requirements when exporting from lightroom, including file size. Works great.
I'm fully aware of the LR exporting options but Most of the time when I'm exporting I'm not reducing it to Backcountry size limits. I guess that maybe I can reduce it and LR and then if necessary use Gigapixel to increase the size again or maybe start saving a small jpg version un-edited.
When you export an image from Lightroom, it doesn't change the original image, it simply makes a copy. You can output multiple sizes for multiple purposes and you'll still have the full res original.
Thanks - I'll give it a try when I get the chance.
Not sure you can track it down @Steve. Lot's of variables involved. Web page resizing, user monitor resizing, etc. For example you say that the web page is 1400px wide. But I view it with Google Chrome on a 2560px wide monitor set to 100 percent zoom and it fills at least 80 percent of the screen. I know absolutely nothing about web page design or how browsers work etc but clearly something is doing some resizing to fit the available space on the monitor. One thing is certain is that the size that I upload an image is not the size that it appears on my monitor. Whether the resizing is being done by the web page or the browser I don't know. But below I've uploaded the same image in widths of 720, 960, 1200, and 1920. On my monitor in each case the images are larger than those pixel counts on my monitor. The 1200 almost fills the web page and 1920px does. The1920px image appears slightly sharper. So as I said I don't know where the resizing is taking place but with everyone using different browsers, different size monitors, etc, I'm not sure this is an issue that is in your controls therefore not sure you can get to the bottom of it. From the few tests I've done the only clear answer I see is that the higher resolution image you post the sharper it appears. This was the conclusion I reached after @BarkingBeansCoffee and I discussed this a while back.I'm curious which ones look fuzzy, etc. the max width is now like 2000px wide, which is fairly high res for web use and nearly twice what instagram recommends. In addition, the forum itself is only 1400px wide, so once you have borders and such, 1200px should be enough. I'd like to track that issue down if I could.
Also, all photos posted in the presentation forums will always show in the most liked and recent galleries, regardless of if they are hosted here or not. It's only those forums and only the first photo of a new post.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
That's interesting - thanks for posting. I think I know what the issue is now.
I think we have the same monitor (Apple display) since I have the same resolution. When I say the forum is 1400px wide, it's the info area, it can expand as wide as you want, but the content area should stay at 1400px.
I think the trouble is, as you say, monitor based. I also run an Ezio 1920 x 1080 next to my 5K retina monitor. When I look at your images on the 5K, the bottom one looks the best. However, when I move over to the HD monitor, the second from last is noticeably better (since the browser has to resize the bottom one to fit in that space).
I think this issue is that retina monitors are tricky. From a "measured" pixels standpoint, mine is 2560. However, the actual resolution is double that at 5120. This is typical of retina screens - they usually have 2X or 3X the number of pixels for the same display area of a traditional monitor. They basically display as a monitor half their resolution so things aren't too tiny to see. However, it has the side effect of making images that look fine on an HD monitor look softer. Doubling the resolution fixes it, so, if you're displaying a 1200px image, it needs to be more like 2400 (which, maybe I should adjust) to look the same as it would on a traditional monitor.
The trouble is, when the higher res images are shown on a HD display, the browser has to downsample them and they don't look as good.
There is a way around it - to allow larger uploads and allow the forum software to identify the display. If it's a retina display, show the larger image, if not, it can create a smaller version of the image to show instead. However, it doesn't seem like the Xenforo people (who make the board) have that functionality yet. I may inquire about it with my developer, but I feel like it's may be somewhat complex.
Seems like just another example of the larger problem of sharing images that will be viewed on user's monitors and that the source photographer can't control monitor settings nor monitor characteristics. IOW, we can all share files in sRGB but we have no control over color calibration of the web viewers monitors and colors can look way off on the far end even if carefully prepared during editing.
Image sizing, on-the-fly resizing, apparent sharpness, color casts, contrast, brightness, ambient lighting at the viewing end and other things can't be carefully controlled when sharing images on the web. Maybe the apparent sharpness issue could be solved with very smart software that somehow detects the type of monitor at the viewers end but it seems to me there will always be discrepancies between the look of images on a photographers editing platform to how it may look to a wide assortment of viewers running different web browsers and different monitors with varying degrees of calibration.
I'm not on an Apple machine. Windows 11 PC with 1600x2560px monitor. The way the images are displaying on my monitor the ones that are being upsized to display larger than the size I uploaded look soft. The only one that looks as sharp as it does when viewed in LR is the one that's 1920px and was downsized by the web page. Below is a screen shot of how the web page displays on my monitor viewed with Google Chrome at 100 percent zoom setting. As you can see the information portion of the page fills more than 1400px. From what I'm able to tell the portion of the web page where images are displayed is 1894px wide and the 1920px image above spans 1868px.
Just so. I don't think this is a (reasonably) solvable problem. This is why I rarely comment on sharpness, colors, or tonality of photos posted on web sites unless they are grossly OOF, over saturated, bright/dark, etc.
LOL, well, I'm scratching my head. The forum has a hard 1400px limit set, so I'm not sure why it's doing that, but I can see above it seems like it's larger than 1400px. I wonder why the browser is displaying the smaller ones at a larger size than what you have. You'd think it would just leave them as is.
FWIW, I tried it in Chrome and the results were the same as when I looked at it in Safari.
I might be trying to fix something that's inherently un-fixable. As everyone says, you can't account for everything I suppose. Still, I'll keep looking into it.
This is an issue that has shown up in the last couple of years. Seems to be more or less concurrent with high rez displays becoming common, network bandwidth increasing, etc. Used to be able to be fairly confident of what size image would show up on screen. I suspect that one or all of the forum software, browser, and operating systems have morphed to take advantage of high rez displays. I have the same problem with using windows photo app on my Windows 11 machine. With Windows 10 it used to simply display at 100 percent image size for smaller resolution images. Now it upsizes them to fill the screen. Does so even when set to 100 percent. Bottom line is I don't think it's an issue that you can "fix". At best maybe figure out a way to explain it so that people have reasonable expectations when posting images.
Yeah, I think we're likely in a transitional period. Eventually, everyone will use higher res displays and the problem will solve itself. Thankfully there's a point where the human eye can't distinguish between something like a 2X retina and a 3X, etc. So, we'll get to the point where it'll all work (I hope). It's weird - I remember when posting an 800px image was considered high-res LOL!
Modern technology! So it continues to evolve into something we all try to achieve in our lives of photography.
I do exactly what Steve is suggesting, with exporting presets. Saves a lot of time. I edit my image and size it appropriately, then export using the presets to Backcountry, facebook, Vero and my website by simply checking the boxes. LR the exports them to the appropriate folder with the applicable settings for each preset. All I have to do is check the box. For here, it downsizes from full res to 1200 pixels on the long end and less than 1mb, sharpened for screen and they turn out just fine on my 27" 4k monitor. All with the click of a checkbox.
When I downsize for forum posts I usually do it in Photoshop. I select the size needed and then resample using Bicubic. This seems to give better results than bicubic sharper most of the time. Automatic is a little erratic sometimes. I believe most people using desktop monitors are using either 24 or 27 inch units with 1920 X1080 or 1920 X 1200 resolution. Creatives are buying 3840 X 2160 resolution at 27 inch or larger. Color calibration and unitormity for monitors over 27 inch is still problematic. I have no data but I expect that my images are viewed on a tablet or laptop screen far more often than on a 4K monitor. For the record, I work in the Windows world using dual 3840 X 2160 monitors that calibrate as 100% sRGB and 98% or better Adobe RGB. Unless I am printing, these monitors are likely overkill for almost all of the times my images are viewed on-line.
@Steve maybe some real time data might help. Start a thread with some parameters that might help you get some data.
Users post an image using your preset, and same image but more MP linked as you define.
Responders can indicate how they compare on one or two monitors and give some data on that. What browser maybe.
Whatever you deem interesting and helpful.
Users post an image using your preset, and same image but more MP linked as you define.
Responders can indicate how they compare on one or two monitors and give some data on that. What browser maybe.
Whatever you deem interesting and helpful.
When I export from LR for posting online, I set the size to 1200 or 1400 pixels on the long edge. Works well for posting here. If I need a better resolution for something, I go back to LR and export the image again at the dimensions I need. No reason to use Gigapixel on a small jpg file when you have the original in LR, waiting to be exported.
Just to see for my own eyes at home. First image using Steve's Preset (1200x799; 925kb) and second using IMGBB full size link (3167x2194; 1.6mb).
My two monitors are a 16" MBP (2021) with a 3456x2234 display and an Asus with a (3840x2160) display.
Looking at the feathers where the end of the beak is I see more softness in the uploaded version.
I acknowledge all the posts about all the variables. I also acknowledge I am far less skilled than most here. I really enjoy the images I get to view on this site. I also am often feeling that I know that is sharper and I wish I could I see that version.
This is just feedback Steve, not good or bad, right or wrong.
EDIT: THIRD IMAGE ADDED. ASKED LIGHTROOM TO EXPORT LIMITING TO 2MB. I BELIEVE ITS CLOSER TO NUMBER 2 AND BETTER THAN NUMBER 1 USING THE PRESET FOR WIDTH.
Second using imgBB link
Image compressed in Lightroom asking for limit to 2mb.
My two monitors are a 16" MBP (2021) with a 3456x2234 display and an Asus with a (3840x2160) display.
Looking at the feathers where the end of the beak is I see more softness in the uploaded version.
I acknowledge all the posts about all the variables. I also acknowledge I am far less skilled than most here. I really enjoy the images I get to view on this site. I also am often feeling that I know that is sharper and I wish I could I see that version.
This is just feedback Steve, not good or bad, right or wrong.
EDIT: THIRD IMAGE ADDED. ASKED LIGHTROOM TO EXPORT LIMITING TO 2MB. I BELIEVE ITS CLOSER TO NUMBER 2 AND BETTER THAN NUMBER 1 USING THE PRESET FOR WIDTH.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Second using imgBB link
Image compressed in Lightroom asking for limit to 2mb.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
What's making the difference has nothing to do with upload vs link. Well indirectly it does. The difference is simply due to the size/resolution of the image the website is dealing with. In your example the website software is upsizing the first image image that is 1200px wide to something slightly larger. The second image is being downsized. To upsize an image the software has to create pixels. Downsizing it is combining/throwing information away. Downsizing will be sharper every time. And particularly when the upsizing is not being done on an even ratio nor by sophisticated software. The problem is then compounded by the monitor. Your high rez monitor is then upsizing the first image again. More created data.
I was perfectly happy with what I was seeing on images that I was uploading here when I was using a 1080p monitor. I started noticing a difference when I got my new laptop with a higher rez monitor. The upsizing is what appears to be causing the image degradation. Which makes sense. That's why there are specific programs like Gigapixel AI to do upsizing. Having a websites/browsers are designed more for rendering speed than high image quality.