Losing quality when converting to JPG (a lot of quality)

[David Mccarthy Media]

I have tried saving it as a .png, .tiff, .jpeg, save for web, 8 bit, 16 bit, srgb, rgb, everything i can think of and the site changed it for the worst. You're thinking that the colorspace of my saved jpegs are not matching well with the web and are not able to maximized the potential of the photograph? if so what should I be saving it as?

Im so confused,
David

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

I just tried going back to the .nef file in bridge, saving it as a jpeg and checking the box convert to sRGB, then in photoshop resizing it to 600H and saving it as a high quality jpeg, and as a high quality jpeg save for web. They all looked exactly the same on my website once uploaded, but on my computer using windows fax/photo viewer they all looked different. The best was save for web, showing a slight increase in quality from the save for web version. This delema is getting farther and farther from resolution...

=[

 

[AUG19]

Drag one of your JPEGs from your desktop into a browser window. Does it look any different from the ones hosted online?


EDIT: ignore that..i just read you tried it already.

 

[Dao]

Do you have a flickr account? Try to upload the photos to flickr and see if they looks different from when viewing in your computer or your website.

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

i have been on this for over 8 hours today. I recently uploaded a file to facebook, and to my website. I took a screen shot from my website, fb, and the raw jpeg put them into photoshop and overlapped them all as layers. When I toggle through them FB displays them closest to the raw, the difference between my website and FB are so drastic. I don't understand this. My website makes my images look like crap, yet FB leaves them alone and they look great.

I have also tried dragging them in to firefox, chrome, and internet explorer. they all look closer to the orginal. AHHHHHHH!H!HH!Hasdhflk haskldhf kahsdkfh askdhf alsdf;

=\

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

Im willing to email anyone the .psd's that show the difference if they think they can help. I have spoke with so many people today that i feel like I'm going crazy. I don't have much money, but if someone can figure this out I would be glad to send something their way.

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

Here is a series jpeg of the snap shots from each viewing platform. The website (top photo) is of the poorest quality. Facebook (the middle) is close to the original (the bottom) photo.

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

The contrast and color warmth are the very noticeable from top to bottom.

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

After sleeping on this issue last night I realized that there is one difference between seeing them on my website and seeing them off my server, the wordpress gallery program.

step 1. I upload the files to my server via FTP
step 2. I then go into word press and import the photos using nextgen. I dont think it makes copies of the photos, I believe it just allows the program to see the photos but I could be wrong.
step 3. I then insert the code on a post in my website allowing the images to be seen.

Its not the fact that they are online that is distorting them its that they go through this secondary uploading type process.

This is driving me mad. The only time I can view them perfectly off my website is when I use the change the options in the gallery and change the JavaScript Thumbnail effect to highslide. But then they are opening up to just a browser window and not being viewed on my website. At that point Im not entirely sure where that script is showing the image from. My server or NextGEN.

If some of this does not make sense I apologize, I am not that literate in this dept and only know what I have been able to teach myself.

 

[KmH]

Facebook is not optimized for displaying photographs. It's a social networking web site, not a photography web site.

You are spinning your wheels.

For online display the 1 color space that works the best is - sRGB - and then only if the browser used is color-aware. For online display there is only 1 bit depth that works - 8-bits.

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

Facebook is not optimized for displaying photographs. It's a social networking web site, not a photography web site.

You are spinning your wheels.

For online display the 1 color space that works the best is - sRGB - and then only if the browser used is color-aware. For online display there is only 1 bit depth that works - 8-bits.

I know that facebook is not designed for optimising the display of my photographs. Thats my point sadly, because it is showing them in a much better quality than my website. The photos are all srgb and 8bit, I have tried experients with and without icc profile, srgb and rgb. They are always displayed worst on my website, and better on anything but it.

sigh.

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/test.jpg

 

[The_Traveler]

stored on photobucket

Saved as jpeg without being converted to sRGB then stored on photobucket

Converted to sRGB and saved on photobucket

'Save for web' on photobucket

stored on Imageshack

RGB

converted to sRGB and saved as JPG

'save for web'

 

[KmH]

http://davidmccarthymedia.com/russ/test.jpg

First why are you using the oddball - Apple RGB?

Second, apparently you don't understand what color space is all about, or the basics of color management. Do you understand that each color spaces color gamut varies. Color space - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Visit www.cambridgeincolor.com click on the tutorials tab, and scroll down to the section on "Color Management".

 

[David Mccarthy Media]

I took all those photos and put them on my website. they look totally different I think. they look a lot more saturated from your image shack account. no?

test | David McCarthy Media CT freelance photographer journalist and artist