UKH

Lightroom export setting for UKC

This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
 duchessofmalfi 02 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

Having downloaded and overlaid the two images I'd say the most significant difference in appearance is the background colour around the picture...

 PPP 02 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

Are you saying that the image you exported via LR is similar quality to one linked in UKC?

I'd go over all the export settings as I have had cases where I misclicked something and didn't notice. I usually go for 1500 on long edge and everything else is default - I let UKC handle the rest as it slightly resizes it. 

Brilliant shot by the way.

Post edited at 22:18
In reply to PPP:

Yeah the LR export is similar to the the UKC one so it's not the upload or UKC that's screwing up the image.

I just tried switching off the LR resizing and just let it limit the filesize to 250kB, but it couldn't produce a file that small with the image.

I generally feel like I get a poor rendition of my images when producing UKC compatible files, this one in particular seems much worse. I don't know if it would be better to upload a larger file and let UKC handle the resizing, I guess that what you are suggesting?

In reply to duchessofmalfi:

Thanks for doing that, I see a clear difference....one looks pretty sharp and the other effectively out of focus. Maybe they look different on the web vs downloaded?

In reply to PPP:

Just tried exporting from LR at 1500 and 2000 on the long edge, the both look pretty good. I've also uploaded to UKC, which downsized  both files to 1200 on the long edge, so I'll have a see how they look when published......

In reply to Mike_d78:

You might be looking at this the wrong way around.
The image hosted on UKC is as per your stipulations: 1000 pixels wide and 220KB. That isn't a massive file and even though it looks OK when viewed normally, it does produce jaggies when zooming in, etc.
The image on Flickr is massive in comparison: 5269 x 2964 pixels and a file size of 2.24MB.  So it's little wonder it looks better, especially if zoomed in.

In reply to FactorXXX:

Hi, I appreciate it's perhaps not a fair comparison, I was just disappointed with the  reduction in quality for a file, which complies with UKC upload rules. Looking at uploads from other users I see good sharpness in these images, so I thought maybe I'm missing a trick. 

Perhaps uploading at 1500 pixels on the long edge, then downsized by UKC to 1200 will be enough.....

In reply to Mike_d78:

> Hi, I appreciate it's perhaps not a fair comparison, I was just disappointed with the  reduction in quality for a file, which complies with UKC upload rules. Looking at uploads from other users I see good sharpness in these images, so I thought maybe I'm missing a trick. 

To be honest, it looks perfectly fine at normal page size and if you download them and toggle between the two there is no noticeable difference.

 Mike-W-99 03 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

Noticed something similar before. On safari on my mac it doesn't quite scale up when you click on it resulting in a slightly blurred image.

If I view the same one on chrome it scales correctly with the sharpness that was previously missing.

 jethro kiernan 03 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

I tend to slide the quality slider down to about 70% this gives about a 6mb file upload that and then let UKC resize it.

In reply to jethro kiernan:

Sounds like I could be a victim of trying to comply with the UKC upload rules. I've uploaded some larger files and I'll see how they look once UKC gets out of bed or back from the crag.......

The image is 16:9 aspect ratio as well, which might not have helped since it was still max 1000 pixels along the the long edge.

 jethro kiernan 03 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

I’ve done a few panoramic pics that way, even if you comply exactly it will probably still go through the resize process, better to start with a bigger file rather than resize a small file

 Sean Kelly 03 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

Resolution should be 72dpi, not 240!

In reply to Sean Kelly:

Hi, ok thanks... I'll give that a try to!

 ChrisJD 03 Mar 2019
In reply to Sean Kelly:

The 'resolution' dpi setting makes zero difference to image quality for digital image viewing; the dpi just provides information to a printer and will let it know what size print the image producer thinks it should be printed out at.

Post edited at 16:54
 Sean Kelly 03 Mar 2019
In reply to ChrisJD: & Mike d78

Oops! Typo, it should have read 72ppi!

When I save Save to web & devices in PS it comes out at 72 ppi!

My saved dimensions are either 1280px wide or 1000px height max,  and up to 250kbs, which seems to work OK. So this way you have more control over resizing rather than the UKC software. However I still moan about the size limit for pano's!

Hope that's clearer. I don't know anything about how Flickr works.

Incidently, 250 kbs is not brilliant for very detailed colour images, one of the reasons I now mainly only submit B&W images.

Post edited at 18:03
 ChrisJD 03 Mar 2019
In reply to Sean Kelly:

The image dpi/ppi setting at export from LR/PS makes no difference to image quality on a screen.

 Mike-W-99 03 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

Interesting, this one lets me do the 2nd click on safari and it looks really good. (Your old one only offered one zoom level)

In reply to ChrisJD:

Hi, just read a recent article about the resolution field in LR export panel. Comments about ppi are near the end...

https://lightroomkillertips.com/that-darn-resolution-field/

Regards

 ChrisJD 07 Mar 2019
In reply to Mike_d78:

So yes, it makes no difference for screen use.


This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...