C&C: Basque Country and Zaragoza (Spain)

[Reilly Diefenbach]

In the samples you posted, both night city scene and daytime landscape shots, the more highly compressed versions have more compression artifact grain which reduces contrast, color gradation and detail.

The detail of the added compression grain is visible at 100% on a wide gamut calibrated 4K monitor. The overall effect of the grain on the 'fit to window' size is a slight haze which reduces contrast, color gradation and detail.

My point exactly. More of a flat effect.

You either see it or you don't. You either care about the difference or you don't. If your equipment is not capable of presenting the difference, it will not matter to you. But the added compression artifacts are present. I can see the difference and prefer the less compressed photos. Reilly's posted example is just another more obvious case of the compression artifact effect.

I upgraded my internet connection speed to more quickly download the increasing number of beautiful large uncompressed files. You claim the first OP photo took a burdensome 48 seconds to load on your system. It took less than 5 seconds on my system.

 

[David Nall]

Thanks for your comments!

@sabrina81: I thought that the system automatically downsize the images. Next time I will upload files with lower quality level

That would help. Image size isn't the problem; file size is the problem. That video I linked to explains about quality levels. In Photoshop level 8 will preserve image quality and keep size down. I don't have LR, but I think a level of 75 to 80% will do the same.

I enjoy full res images, so suggest you get a faster connection and please stop complaining. The all load for me in a few seconds, and I can then zoom in and see minute details not available at lesser quality.

--
Visit my gallery at https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefroggyspics/
View of Yosemite Valley, Bridalveil fall 4 frame vertical pano taken from the tunnel parking lot.

https://flic.kr/p/pbmHi3

 

[lilBuddha]

Sabrina, If you're happy with down res, fine.

So you can't SHOW any loss of image quality in those two versions of the same image. I didn't think you could. And I'm reasonably sure that no one else can see any difference in image quality. That was my point from the start, and nothing you've said has shown it to be mistaken. And by the way, it isn't "down res." Resolution of both images is exactly the same. It's only a reduction in the quality level at which the image is saved. And that reduction doesn't reduce image quality.

The DPR sample galleries always have full size, full res jpgs,

Yes, the dpr sample images that accompany camera reviews are always full size/full res jpegs. But they are certainly not saved at the maximum quality level. A dpr sample image with the same dimensions as the OP's images in this thread has a file size of 7 or 8 MB, which means it was probably at about quality level 8 in Photoshop. So my point stands: When posting images in forums, you can get excellent image quality without saving at maximum quality levels and producing ridiculously huge file sizes.

In the samples you posted, both night city scene and daytime landscape shots, the more highly compressed versions have more compression artifact grain which reduces contrast, color gradation and detail.

The detail of the added compression grain is visible at 100% on a wide gamut calibrated 4K monitor. The overall effect of the grain on the 'fit to window' size is a slight haze which reduces contrast, color gradation and detail.

You either see it or you don't. You either care about the difference or you don't. If your equipment is not capable of presenting the difference, it will not matter to you.

It mightn't matter even if one can see it. This is a C&C post. Resolution and compression are tangential to this unless printing at specific sizes is one of the constraints.

I upgraded my internet connection speed to more quickly download the increasing number of beautiful large uncompressed files. You claim the first OP photo took a burdensome 48 seconds to load on your system. It took less than 5 seconds on my system.

Not everyone has the latest and greatest.

 

[poppyjk]

Sabrina, If you're happy with down res, fine.

So you can't SHOW any loss of image quality in those two versions of the same image. I didn't think you could. And I'm reasonably sure that no one else can see any difference in image quality. That was my point from the start, and nothing you've said has shown it to be mistaken. And by the way, it isn't "down res." Resolution of both images is exactly the same. It's only a reduction in the quality level at which the image is saved. And that reduction doesn't reduce image quality.

The DPR sample galleries always have full size, full res jpgs,

Yes, the dpr sample images that accompany camera reviews are always full size/full res jpegs. But they are certainly not saved at the maximum quality level. A dpr sample image with the same dimensions as the OP's images in this thread has a file size of 7 or 8 MB, which means it was probably at about quality level 8 in Photoshop. So my point stands: When posting images in forums, you can get excellent image quality without saving at maximum quality levels and producing ridiculously huge file sizes.

Histogram of smaller compressed file which adds haze and reduces contrast, color gradation and detail


Histogram of larger uncompressed file which quantifies the differences which are visible to me even in these two small images




"Not all who wander are lost." —J.R.R. Tolkien

 

[sabrina81]

Thanks for your comments!

@sabrina81: I thought that the system automatically downsize the images. Next time I will upload files with lower quality level

That would help. Image size isn't the problem; file size is the problem. That video I linked to explains about quality levels. In Photoshop level 8 will preserve image quality and keep size down. I don't have LR, but I think a level of 75 to 80% will do the same.

I enjoy full res images, so suggest you get a faster connection and please stop complaining.

I also enjoy full res images. I did not recommend lowering the resolution, so please stop misstating my position. I wasn't complaining. I was suggesting that the OP use a somewhat lower quality level when uploading images to the forum.

I posted two images above for comparison. Both have exactly the same resolution: 24 megapixels, the native resolution of the OP's camera. They differ only in file size, not resolution.

And by the way, not everyone has faster connections available, so please don't lecture me about my Internet connection.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Sabrina, If you're happy with down res, fine.

So you can't SHOW any loss of image quality in those two versions of the same image.

Let me repeat. I'm not interested in anyone else's jpgs, only my own. I am well satisfied that the 80% rendering is not up to the best I can make, and it is not any kind of close call, as shown in the screen cap I posted. When you get a landscape-worthy high res camera and a 4K monitor, you may change your mind. I'll expect a full apology at that time :^)

I didn't think you could. And I'm reasonably sure that no one else can see any difference in image quality.

You are wrong. See below.

That was my point from the start, and nothing you've said has shown it to be mistaken. And by the way, it isn't "down res." Resolution of both images is exactly the same. It's only a reduction in the quality level at which the image is saved.

Whatever.

And that reduction doesn't reduce image quality.

Yes, it most certainly does, as it must. You are unable or unwilling to see it, but it is a plain old mechanical fact.

The DPR sample galleries always have full size, full res jpgs,

Yes, the dpr sample images that accompany camera reviews are always full size/full res jpegs. But they are certainly not saved at the maximum quality level.

Yes, they most certainly are exported at 100% quality from Lightroom. Not even close to 90%, let alone 80.

A dpr sample image with the same dimensions as the OP's images in this thread has a file size of 7 or 8 MB, which means it was probably at about quality level 8 in Photoshop. So my point stands: When posting images in forums, you can get excellent image quality without saving at maximum quality levels and producing ridiculously huge file sizes.

I'm sorry you have a slow internet connection, but don't expect the rest of us to cater to your needs at the expense of best possible image quality. We want to see the details at full contrast and at the lowest noise level!

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

You either see it or you don't. You either care about the difference or you don't. If your equipment is not capable of presenting the difference, it will not matter to you.

It mightn't matter even if one can see it. This is a C&C post.

I thanked the OP for providing full size jpgs, which allows us to gauge the presentation of detail and overall clarity and contrast untrammeled by compression artifacts. That is a legitimate factor in any C&C in this forum.

Resolution and compression are tangential to this unless printing at specific sizes is one of the constraints.

Printing has nothing to do with it.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

I enjoy full res images, so suggest you get a faster connection and please stop complaining.

I also enjoy full res images. I did not recommend lowering the resolution, so please stop misstating my position. I wasn't complaining. I was suggesting that the OP use a somewhat lower quality level when uploading images to the forum.

Which several of us are recommending he doesn't. This is the landscape forum, and many of us take pride in presenting our masterpieces in their full size, full quality glory!

I posted two images above for comparison. Both have exactly the same resolution: 24 megapixels, the native resolution of the OP's camera. They differ only in file size, not resolution.

They apparently differ in quality as well.

And by the way, not everyone has faster connections available, so please don't lecture me about my Internet connection.

This makes no sense. You expect everyone critically to examine less than optimal pictures simply because your connection is slow? That qualifies for a big Fred Willard "I don't think so!"

 

[sabrina81]

They apparently differ in quality as well.

And yet you earlier praised the quality of DPR sample images:

The DPR sample galleries always have full size, full res jpgs, and I would never hold myself to a lower standard.

But DPR saves those images at about the same quality level that I recommended to the OP. Either that quality comes up to your exacting standards, or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

 

[poppyjk]

And by the way, not everyone has faster connections available, so please don't lecture me about my Internet connection.

Then accept the consequences of a slow internet connection and stop lecturing others about file size. If an extra 30-45 seconds to download a photo ruins your whole day, then you have other problems.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

They apparently differ in quality as well.

And yet you earlier praised the quality of DPR sample images:

Because they are in fact full size, full quality jpgs. I would accept nothing less when it comes to a critical evaluation of a particular camera's image quality.

The DPR sample galleries always have full size, full res jpgs, and I would never hold myself to a lower standard.

But DPR saves those images at about the same quality level that I recommended to the OP.

No, they do not.

Either that quality comes up to your exacting standards, or it does not. You can't have it both ways.

You will at some point have to come to grips with the fact that DPR sample jpgs are full quality as exported from Lightroom. Not 90%, certainly not 80%. Full quality.

 

[David Nall]

Hi all!

I would like to share some pictures of my trip to Basque Country and Zaragoza last January. On my website you can see many more pictures of the trip:

https://francescobonino.smugmug.com/Travels/Euskadi/

All the pictures have been taken with Sony A7 II, Sony-Zeiss 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

C&C are welcome!

This one is the best of these IMHO, but I do like all of them. Well done...

On this one I think you could improve it slightly by increasing saturation and sharpness on the foreground area some, reduce the white area in the sky and water, darken the distant mountain, work on reducing halos there as well, and lighten the large dark mountain some.

Stairway to San Juan de Gaztelugatxe

I also dimmed your watermark as I find it to be a little distracting.



--
Visit my gallery at https://www.flickr.com/photos/elitefroggyspics/
View of Yosemite Valley, Bridalveil fall 4 frame vertical pano taken from the tunnel parking lot.

https://flic.kr/p/pbmHi3

 

[sabrina81]

You will at some point have to come to grips with the fact that DPR sample jpgs are full quality as exported from Lightroom. Not 90%, certainly not 80%. Full quality.

Here is a review of a Sony camera with the same resolution as the OP's camera: 6000 x 4000 (24 megapixels).

Here is one of the sample images in that review. Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 6.18 MB.

Here is another sample image from that review. Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 7.1 MB.

Here is a third sample image from that review. Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 7.8 MB.

Could you please explain how they saved these images at a 100% quality level and also kept the file size below 8 MB?

For comparison, here are the OP's first three images in this thread, which we know were saved at the highest quality level:

Image 1 . Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 17.2 MB.

Image 2 . Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 27.4 MB

Image 3 . Image size: 6000 x 4000. File size: 19.9 MB

 

[poppyjk]

Sabrina, If you're happy with down res, fine.

So you can't SHOW any loss of image quality in those two versions of the same image. I didn't think you could. And I'm reasonably sure that no one else can see any difference in image quality. That was my point from the start, and nothing you've said has shown it to be mistaken. And by the way, it isn't "down res." Resolution of both images is exactly the same. It's only a reduction in the quality level at which the image is saved. And that reduction doesn't reduce image quality.

The DPR sample galleries always have full size, full res jpgs,

Yes, the dpr sample images that accompany camera reviews are always full size/full res jpegs. But they are certainly not saved at the maximum quality level. A dpr sample image with the same dimensions as the OP's images in this thread has a file size of 7 or 8 MB, which means it was probably at about quality level 8 in Photoshop. So my point stands: When posting images in forums, you can get excellent image quality without saving at maximum quality levels and producing ridiculously huge file sizes.

In the samples you posted, both night city scene and daytime landscape shots, the more highly compressed versions have more compression artifact grain which reduces contrast, color gradation and detail.

The detail of the added compression grain is visible at 100% on a wide gamut calibrated 4K monitor. The overall effect of the grain on the 'fit to window' size is a slight haze which reduces contrast, color gradation and detail.

You either see it or you don't. You either care about the difference or you don't. If your equipment is not capable of presenting the difference, it will not matter to you.

It mightn't matter even if one can see it. This is a C&C post. Resolution and compression are tangential to this unless printing at specific sizes is one of the constraints.

I upgraded my internet connection speed to more quickly download the increasing number of beautiful large uncompressed files. You claim the first OP photo took a burdensome 48 seconds to load on your system. It took less than 5 seconds on my system.

Not everyone has the latest and greatest.

@lilBuddha -- I agree in spirit with your points, and I think the OP's photos are great, especially the descending stairway.

I was only reacting in a pedantic way to Sabrina's pedantic post that instigated this tangent. I hope the OP does not take any offense, and I appreciate that he posted in uncompressed full resolution.

I can't think of a reason that I should be prevented from enjoying my two year old 'latest and greatest' just because not everyone has it. In technology there is a relentless escalating zero point. Since this photography hobby is a great distraction from my disabilities, I intend to enjoy it the best I can. I hope you and others never have to deal with a situation like mine.

 

[lilBuddha]

I was only reacting in a pedantic way to Sabrina's pedantic post that instigated this tangent. I hope the OP does not take any offense, and I appreciate that he posted in uncompressed full resolution.

I do not agree that is where the problem started, but this is my lost post on this tangent because we are distracting from the OP.

 

[lilBuddha]

Hi all!

I would like to share some pictures of my trip to Basque Country and Zaragoza last January. On my website you can see many more pictures of the trip:

https://francescobonino.smugmug.com/Travels/Euskadi/

All the pictures have been taken with Sony A7 II, Sony-Zeiss 16-35 f/4 and Tamron 28-75 f/2.8

C&C are welcome!

This one is the best of these IMHO, but I do like all of them. Well done...

On this one I think you could improve it slightly by increasing saturation and sharpness on the foreground area some, reduce the white area in the sky and water, darken the distant mountain, work on reducing halos there as well, and lighten the large dark mountain some.

Stairway to San Juan de Gaztelugatxe

I also dimmed your watermark as I find it to be a little distracting.

Funny, because my first reaction to your reprocess was not a completely positive one. However, after looking at it a little larger, I think the idea has some merit. Though I would also punch up the image were it my own, I would do it more selectively. But we are really moving into preference over a more objective analysis in this. Nothing wrong with that, but IMO the differences should be noted.

 

[franct]

Thank your David Nall for your version of Gaztelugatxe. IMHO I think is too contrasted, but actually your version "pops" much than mine, so is interesting.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

You can scour the galleries to try and prove your point, but the good stuff all has raws that can be downloaded and exported. Which will show saved at full quality, not a stingy 2 or 3 MBs.

Nikon D500. Notice the size of the file, 9MB, just as shown in the full quality DPR sample gallery :


D500 Save As

If we were to follow your recommendation and save as ACR quality 8, we would wind up with a paltry 1.7 MP. No thanks!


Quality 8 in ACR

 

[sabrina81]

You can scour the galleries to try and prove your point, but the good stuff all has raws that can be downloaded and exported.

You keep moving the goalposts. We're not talking about raw files, because they aren't saved at any quality level. That's why they're called "raw." When you spoke of DPR sample images, you were talking about jpgs, not raw files. The sample jpgs shown with camera reviews are not saved at 100% quality level as you claimed.

Which will show saved at full quality, not a stingy 2 or 3 MBs.

Straw man. The DPR sample images I linked to are 6.18 to 7.8 MB, not "a stingy 2 or 3 MBs." Why don't you address my question instead of being evasive?

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

You can scour the galleries to try and prove your point, but the good stuff all has raws that can be downloaded and exported.

You keep moving the goalposts. We're not talking about raw files, because they aren't saved at any quality level. That's why they're called "raw." When you spoke of DPR sample images, you were talking about jpgs, not raw files.

Why is this so difficult for you to understand? The raws are there to download and convert and save as full size jpgs. Sheesh!

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

The sample jpgs shown with camera reviews are not saved at 100% quality level as you claimed.

Most of them to my certain knowledge are full quality, because if they were 80 percent quality, they would be 2-3MB. They are not. You can yammer away all you want, but that's the reality.

Which will show saved at full quality, not a stingy 2 or 3 MBs.

Straw man. The DPR sample images I linked to are 6.18 to 7.8 MB, not "a stingy 2 or 3 MBs."

I don't have the time or inclination to mess about with pictures with which you wish to force feed me. Take five minutes to download the RAWS, then export/save as 80 percent quality. Maybe then the light will dawn.

Why don't you address my question instead of being evasive?

You are the one who is attempting to dumb down our jpgs, and it's going over like a lead balloon.