login info join!
Forums > Photography Talk > Vivid Jpeg look out of Raw files Search   Reply
Photographer
CE Photog
Posts: 236
Columbus, Ohio, US


I recently did a side by side comparison of the photos that came from my D7000. The Jpeg files looked amazing, but the Raws were of course, well flat looking. How do you adjust the raw photos to make them pop like the jpegs.
Nov 05 13 03:49 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
SPierce Photography
Posts: 19,712
Amherst, Massachusetts, US


CE Photog wrote:
I recently did a side by side comparison of the photos that came from my D7000. The Jpeg files looked amazing, but the Raws were of course, well flat looking. How do you adjust the raw photos to make them pop like the jpegs.

What are you doing with them in post ? I normally just do a contrast adjustment on mine, and maybe a little curves. Then they're set to go- but it varies per camera.

Nov 05 13 03:52 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Feverstockphoto
Posts: 588
London, England, United Kingdom


Curves, vibrance/saturation, adjust tones, colours, contrast etc... There are a ton of things you can do to the Raw image.
Nov 05 13 03:55 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Images by MR
Posts: 7,678
Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada


CE Photog wrote:
I recently did a side by side comparison of the photos that came from my D7000. The Jpeg files looked amazing, but the Raws were of course, well flat looking. How do you adjust the raw photos to make them pop like the jpegs.

If the jpegs look amazing why even touch the raw files?

Nov 05 13 03:58 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Thomas Doggett
Posts: 18
Batavia, Illinois, US


If your using Lightroom, set the Lightroom camera calibration to automatically adjust your RAW images upon import.

http://digital-photography-school.com/f … tings.html
Nov 05 13 04:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 22,428
Salem, Oregon, US


i shoot jpeg. problem solved. actually i still find myself amping up the images especially on senior shoots.

there are plug-ins like radlab and check out:
http://briannagraham.com/actionswp/

basically you want things that add vibrance/pop/detail without destroying skin tones (or use masks to save the skin).

here's another one:
http://greaterthangatsby.com

some of the popping examples people show seem like they made the image worse or weird. but some are effective at least for a style that is popular now.
Nov 05 13 04:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
KonstantKarma
Posts: 2,513
Hickory, North Carolina, US


RAW files are naturally flatter, because they're the 'real' image while the JPGs are manipulated in the camera.

Add a contrast layer, a sharpness layer, a saturation layer if it's in color, adjust to taste.  That's most likely what your camera is doing to make jpgs, and then you can tweak your curves more from there.
Nov 05 13 04:09 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Digitoxin
Posts: 13,343
Houston, Texas, US


There are a bunch of ways.

Try a defog.... USM 20,60,0
Nov 05 13 04:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
B R U N E S C I
Posts: 25,319
Bath, England, United Kingdom


Lightroom.

Or whatever RAW converter you prefer.






Just my $0.02

Ciao
Stefano

www.stefanobrunesci.com
Nov 05 13 04:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Will Snizek Photography
Posts: 1,387
Beckley, West Virginia, US


I use Aperture to import RAW files (I know some hate it, but I love it).  I have the program calibrated according to which camera I'm importing from and there's no issues.  I'm pretty sure you can set up Lightroom in a similar way.
Nov 05 13 05:07 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


CE Photog wrote:
I recently did a side by side comparison of the photos that came from my D7000. The Jpeg files looked amazing, but the Raws were of course, well flat looking. How do you adjust the raw photos to make them pop like the jpegs.

Use Nikon View (free) and/or Nikon Capture ($150 I think)

Both of these programs use the incamera settings so your images will match perfectly.

Nov 05 13 05:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


Will Snizek wrote:
I use Aperture to import RAW files (I know some hate it, but I love it).  I have the program calibrated according to which camera I'm importing from and there's no issues.  I'm pretty sure you can set up Lightroom in a similar way.

You can, however, there are drawbacks.

For example, IIRC Lightroom does not recognize any picture control settings for Nikon, so whether you shoot "standard" or "vivid" it won't be smart enough to begin at that rendering.

This was frustrating for me, because shooting events in jpeg, I had multiple custom picture control settings that I would select based on lighting conditions, but a program such as Lightroom is completely UNaware of such settings and even if you make such a selection while you're shooting, you still need to go back and start from scratch with Adobe.

I know many people like starting the "develop" process from a neutral beginning, or even one custom preset for a whole batch, but for folks that shoot in varying conditions having the program be completely stupid about in-camera settings it is very frustrating and makes the workflow harder than it should be.

Nov 05 13 05:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

Use Nikon View (free) and/or Nikon Capture ($150 I think)

Both of these programs use the incamera settings so your images will match perfectly.

Unfortunately, what are the options for output from them, IIRC, only jpeg or tiff?

So, for someone who might want to use LR, you can't use either of those programs as a pre-processor to take advantage of those in-camera settings because unless you're editing in those programs, I don't know of any way you can edit the raw file in an Adobe product AND be able to have a starting point of the in-camera settings while preserving raw adjust-ability.

Yes, you can manually select Adobe's version of Nikon's factory jpeg settings, but it can't identify it on its own and apply the correct one that matches what you used, it must be done manually.

Nov 05 13 05:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,840
Los Angeles, California, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

Use Nikon View (free) and/or Nikon Capture ($150 I think)

Both of these programs use the incamera settings so your images will match perfectly.

Yes, View NX for Nikon, yourNEF and JPEG files will open as the same. It's that simple. You can then export the NEF file as a TIFF and open it in photoshop or lightroom, particularly if you want to adjust exposure in the background area, etc.

The View NX disk came in the box with your Nikon D7000.

Nov 05 13 05:24 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,840
Los Angeles, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:

Unfortunately, what are the options for output from them, IIRC, only jpeg or tiff?

So, for someone who might want to use LR, you can't use either of those programs as a pre-processor to take advantage of those in-camera settings because unless you're editing in those programs, I don't know of any way you can edit the raw file in an Adobe product AND be able to have a starting point of the in-camera settings while preserving raw adjust-ability.

Yes, you can manually select Adobe's version of Nikon's factory jpeg settings, but it can't identify it on its own and apply the correct one that matches what you used, it must be done manually.

Oh, wow, you don't know this one: Save the Tiff file in a folder, open in Adobe Camera Raw this way: go to open as and choose, you'll see camera raw. Okay? Hope I didn't lose you you. I do that one a lot.

Nov 05 13 05:28 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


LA StarShooter wrote:
Oh, wow, you don't know this one: Save the Tiff file in a folder, open in Adobe Camera Raw this way: go to open as and choose, you'll see camera raw. Okay? Hope I didn't lose you you. I do that one a lot.

It is no longer a raw file, it is a tiff that you're editing with the ACR control points.

Not the same thing.

Plus, when shooting an event with a bunch of participants and generating say 5,000 photos from one event, MORE than doubling your file size requirement.... brilliant solution.

Thank you so much for "enlightening" me.  smile

For the OP, yes, what LA described is about the only way you can obtain that incamera starting point based on what the file says you shot it as, using the Nikon software, be stuck using their controls and/or be stuck exporting to a non-raw format and processing elsewhere.

Nov 05 13 05:41 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,840
Los Angeles, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:

It is no longer a raw file, it is a tiff that you're editing with the ACR control points.

Not the same thing.

Plus, when shooting an event with a bunch of participants and generating say 5,000 photos from one event, MORE than doubling your file size requirement.... brilliant solution.

Thank you so much for "enlightening" me.  smile

For the OP, yes, what LA described is about the only way you can obtain that incamera starting point based on what the file says you shot it as, using the Nikon software, be stuck using their controls and/or be stuck exporting to a non-raw format and processing elsewhere.

The NEF structure is actually Tiff-based. It's why it is exported in Tiff from View NEF. So, what you call the Raw file, is actually Tiff-based but done from a proprietary angle.

Nov 05 13 08:01 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
LA StarShooter
Posts: 1,840
Los Angeles, California, US


The TIFF-Based structure for NEF and most "raw" files inspired Adobe Photoshop's DNG  which also based. . . on the TIFF/EP standard format.
Nov 05 13 08:06 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Raoul Isidro Images
Posts: 6,146
Sydney, New South Wales, Australia


CE Photog wrote:
How do you adjust the raw photos to make them pop like the jpegs.

Copy what the camera did by replicating it's actions on picture control.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fGdw6K4vBzs/TlP7vYi6ebI/AAAAAAAAAPU/b6S2FcEGF3E/s1600/SetPictureControl1.jpg

Now donate $1 to charity for the revelation.

Hava nice day.

.

Nov 05 13 08:29 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
imcFOTO
Posts: 579
Bothell, Washington, US


My first reaction is that if you're not aware of how to adjust the Raw Image, you probably should stick to JPG (which as others have said is really just your camera doing the Raw to JPG conversion for you - but you have little control of the results).

I always shoot in Raw and I don't care what the images initially look like in Nikon View NX2 (a great freebie) - as long as they are in focus, have the content I need and are not overly under or over exposed.

I still use Photoshop Elements (11) for most of my work and just drag the NEF from View NX2 to PSE and it opens in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Then I can make all the adjustments I need for white balance, exposure, saturation etc. At this point, we're still just adjusting the RAW parameters. Then the image opens up in PSE and I normally have the majority of my color/exposure/contrast already done at that point.

Then I'll do any liquifying (and I use Portrait Professioanl as a plugin at this point sometimes) and so on (still in 16bit) and save that as a Tiff. That gives me a point to go back to if I need without going to the RAW again. We haven't lost any detail at this point - since we're in 16bit Tiff and yes these are bigger files than the original RAW but until PSE offers RAW editing, it will work for me. I make a point of not using any PSE features that will want to downgrade the image to 8bit at this stage (such as straightening).

Then I may continue with any post processing and may even do another save of that FINAL TIFF before I consider converting to JPG and downsizing (which I usually do as a batch operation either in PSE of View NX2 - both do a good job.

I'm sure if could be easier in Lightroom3 (which I have) - but honestly it works for me and since I usually only edit 30 or so shots for a session - I haven't the incentive to go down the learning curve. I still find ACR easiest to use.

But basically, if you're not wanting to go thru these kind of steps - don't shoot raw.
Nov 05 13 11:11 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


Raoul Isidro Images wrote:

Copy what the camera did by replicating it's actions on picture control.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-fGdw6K4vBzs/TlP7vYi6ebI/AAAAAAAAAPU/b6S2FcEGF3E/s1600/SetPictureControl1.jpg

Now donate $1 to charity for the revelation.

Hava nice day.

.

I think that was the exact opposite of what the OP was asking/intending.

Nov 05 13 11:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
imcFOTO
Posts: 579
Bothell, Washington, US


ontherocks wrote:
i shoot jpeg. problem solved. actually i still find myself amping up the images especially on senior shoots.

there are plug-ins like radlab and check out:
http://briannagraham.com/actionswp/

basically you want things that add vibrance/pop/detail without destroying skin tones (or use masks to save the skin).

here's another one:
http://greaterthangatsby.com

some of the popping examples people show seem like they made the image worse or weird. but some are effective at least for a style that is popular now.

The only downside is that everytime you edit/save a JPG, you degrade the image. The advantage of RAW is that adjustment and then rendering/saving as a TIFF is lossless. Ideally you can save the conversion to JPG till the very end.

Nov 05 13 11:15 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


imcFOTO wrote:
My first reaction is that if you're not aware of how to adjust the Raw Image, you probably should stick to JPG (which as others have said is really just your camera doing the Raw to JPG conversion for you - but you have little control of the results).

I always shoot in Raw and I don't care what the images initially look like in Nikon View NX2 (a great freebie) - as long as they are in focus, have the content I need and are not overly under or over exposed.

I still use Photoshop Elements (11) for most of my work and just drag the NEF from View NX2 to PSE and it opens in ACR (Adobe Camera Raw). Then I can make all the adjustments I need for white balance, exposure, saturation etc. At this point, we're still just adjusting the RAW parameters. Then the image opens up in PSE and I normally have the majority of my color/exposure/contrast already done at that point.

Then I'll do any liquifying (and I use Portrait Professioanl as a plugin at this point sometimes) and so on (still in 16bit) and save that as a Tiff. That gives me a point to go back to if I need without going to the RAW again. We haven't lost any detail at this point - since we're in 16bit Tiff and yes these are bigger files than the original RAW but until PSE offers RAW editing, it will work for me. I make a point of not using any PSE features that will want to downgrade the image to 8bit at this stage (such as straightening).

Then I may continue with any post processing and may even do another save of that FINAL TIFF before I consider converting to JPG and downsizing (which I usually do as a batch operation either in PSE of View NX2 - both do a good job.

I'm sure if could be easier in Lightroom3 (which I have) - but honestly it works for me and since I usually only edit 30 or so shots for a session - I haven't the incentive to go down the learning curve. I still find ACR easiest to use.

But basically, if you're not wanting to go thru these kind of steps - don't shoot raw.

Not sure if it is the OP's intent, but I will say that if you have the ability to control how jpegs look out of the camera, it seems pretty idiotic that you cannot use the Adobe products with raw files to produce the same results WITHOUT needing to do anything to make it happen, AND have that be your starting point, not something you need to work to get to (or have a preset to manually apply when the info to get there is already in the file, but not understood by Adobe.)

If the camera is set to produce jpegs that look a certain way, and that information is contained in the raw file, then that is how the raw file should appear when looked at "as shot", yet with the Adobe products, that is NOT the case.

I realize for a lot of studio shooters, or people who may work with 5 shots out of 150 when shooting a model, because it is easy to fine tune each one.

However, think of weddings, or events, or sports where you're working with making a LOT more photos look right, and if you change a picture control on the camera, it should change how the raw looks (in Adobe products) when viewed "as shot".

Unfortunately, if someone cares about picture controls, and wants the "as shot" to be TRUE, they need to go with Nikon or Canon software, rather ironic with Adobe being the "industry standard".  sad

Nov 05 13 11:20 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:
Unfortunately, what are the options for output from them, IIRC, only jpeg or tiff?

So, for someone who might want to use LR, you can't use either of those programs as a pre-processor to take advantage of those in-camera settings because unless you're editing in those programs, I don't know of any way you can edit the raw file in an Adobe product AND be able to have a starting point of the in-camera settings while preserving raw adjust-ability.

Yes, you can manually select Adobe's version of Nikon's factory jpeg settings, but it can't identify it on its own and apply the correct one that matches what you used, it must be done manually.

You use them INSTEAD or Adobe Camera RAW.

His question was about how to get his RAW files to look like his JPEGs.  Using Nikon's software is the BEST and most EFFICIENT way of achieving this goal because their software recognizes the in-camera settings.

What are the output options? For use with other programs, JPEG or TIFF.

My workflow, I make selections in Nikon View, open in Capture NX2 to make adjustments (if necessary), and then export to Photoshop CS4 as a 16-bit tiff for retouching.

Nov 06 13 07:54 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:

It is no longer a raw file, it is a tiff that you're editing with the ACR control points.

Not the same thing.

Plus, when shooting an event with a bunch of participants and generating say 5,000 photos from one event, MORE than doubling your file size requirement.... brilliant solution.

Thank you so much for "enlightening" me.  smile

For the OP, yes, what LA described is about the only way you can obtain that incamera starting point based on what the file says you shot it as, using the Nikon software, be stuck using their controls and/or be stuck exporting to a non-raw format and processing elsewhere.

I'm having a hard time following you...

If you want to use Adobe Camera RAW, then you'll just have to accept the fact that it doesn't recognize in-camera settings.

If you WANT your in-camera settings recognized so that your RAW files will match your JPEGs, then use Nikon's software.  It is not Nikon's or anyone else's fault that you can't adjust your RAW files in Nikon's software and then finish them in ACR.  That doesn't make any sense to me.  If you like ACR's controls because they are better than Nikon's, I get that.  But as I said, you'll have to accept that ACR does not recognize in-camera settings.

If you use Nikon's software to make adjustments, there is no NEED for another processor like ACR.  At that point, you just export to your preferred format between either JPG or TIFF.  For me, I use 16-bit TIFFs for final retouch.

Nov 06 13 08:09 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


DougBPhoto wrote:

Not sure if it is the OP's intent, but I will say that if you have the ability to control how jpegs look out of the camera, it seems pretty idiotic that you cannot use the Adobe products with raw files to produce the same results WITHOUT needing to do anything to make it happen, AND have that be your starting point, not something you need to work to get to (or have a preset to manually apply when the info to get there is already in the file, but not understood by Adobe.)

If the camera is set to produce jpegs that look a certain way, and that information is contained in the raw file, then that is how the raw file should appear when looked at "as shot", yet with the Adobe products, that is NOT the case.

I realize for a lot of studio shooters, or people who may work with 5 shots out of 150 when shooting a model, because it is easy to fine tune each one.

However, think of weddings, or events, or sports where you're working with making a LOT more photos look right, and if you change a picture control on the camera, it should change how the raw looks (in Adobe products) when viewed "as shot".

Unfortunately, if someone cares about picture controls, and wants the "as shot" to be TRUE, they need to go with Nikon or Canon software, rather ironic with Adobe being the "industry standard".  sad

this isn't a knock against Adobe.  Adobe isn't the only one producing an application to work with RAW files.  Apple's aperture has the SAME problem.  And on Windows, IIRC, and you don't use Nikon's RAW codec, the OS Browser won't recognize in-camera settings.

Take for example my current avatar.  I shot it in B/W NEF.  My Nikon software recognizes it and they all show in b/w.  If I open them in ACR or preview in Bridge, they appear in color because they ignored my picture controls.

Nov 06 13 08:15 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
ontherocks
Posts: 22,428
Salem, Oregon, US


the funny thing is we try so hard to avoid jpeg degradation but then at the end the customer uploads the image to Facebook and it gets completely destroyed. sigh.

i've been surprised at how hard i can push jpegs and still have them turn out ok even at 16"x20" (don't generally go larger than that).

i do shoot jpeg+sraw just to be on the safe side but i rarely use the raws. generally i find that if the image is wrecked as a jpeg (way overexposed) even RAW can't really make it as a good as if i had captured the correct exposure. and on my last wedding i was at ISO 6400 and even 12,800 and the noise in the jpeg looked way better than the RAW (but that was in aperture which i don't think is known for noise reduction).

but shooting jpeg it is more important to try to nail the exposure and get the WB somewhere in the right ballpark.

imcFOTO wrote:
The only downside is that everytime you edit/save a JPG, you degrade the image. The advantage of RAW is that adjustment and then rendering/saving as a TIFF is lossless. Ideally you can save the conversion to JPG till the very end.

Nov 06 13 08:21 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:
If you use Nikon's software to make adjustments, there is no NEED for another processor like ACR.  At that point, you just export to your preferred format between either JPG or TIFF.  For me, I use 16-bit TIFFs for final retouch.

When you stop to consider that some people don't work with one image at a time, but often work with thousands of images at a time, the explanation of why not just do it that way may become self-evident to you (and others.)

As even I stated above to the OP, the Nikon/Canon software ARE the way to get the raw file to look exactly like a jpeg straight from the camera would.

You are right, if you use Nikon's software to make your adjustments you don't need ACR, but personally I hated Nikon's controls, and I need to move the images into Lightroom anyway for the proper watermarking process as a part of final batch export (such as shooting a large event) and the means suck.  I can start with a 10 meg NEF and create a 20 meg Tiff, but you just tripled your disk space requirement, multiply that by 5,000 images and it clearly isn't a winning way to go.

The reason for stressing that ACR, none of the adobe camera raw products, photoshop, creative cloud, lightroom, photoshop elements, NONE of them recognize all of the in-camera settings to accurately render a RAW to look like the jpeg would, and since Adobe products are the "industry standard" it is important folks know the problem is with the software not user error.

Nov 06 13 09:36 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


Well, the OP hasn't been back yet to provide any additional details...if that is even necessary. I tailored my response directly to address his question.  If Nikon's software doesn't fit with his workflow, then he'll obviously need to figure something else out.
Nov 06 13 10:01 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dave McDermott
Posts: 374
Coill Dubh, Kildare, Ireland


imcFOTO wrote:

ontherocks wrote:
The only downside is that everytime you edit/save a JPG, you degrade the image.

I think you'd have to edit/save the image many times over before any degradation in quality is noticeable, especially if you're only using the image on the web. I find the degradation is more noticeable when re-sizing images for MM.

Nov 06 13 11:25 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
imcFOTO
Posts: 579
Bothell, Washington, US


Dave McDermott wrote:
... I find the degradation is more noticeable when re-sizing images for MM.

I'm never quit e sure why MM images look so much worse than my own resized JPGs - yes way worse than typical JPG degrading.

Nov 07 13 12:22 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


imcFOTO wrote:

I'm never quit e sure why MM images look so much worse than my own resized JPGs - yes way worse than typical JPG degrading.

That is a different topic, but it usually happens when someone does not have the sRGB profile embedded in the jpeg and/or the image is too large and their image servers resize it.

If you upload a version according to the size rules and with the profile in the file, the appearance of the image does not change.

Nov 07 13 12:28 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Camerosity
Posts: 5,300
Saint Louis, Missouri, US


My presets in ACR are +50 sharpness, +50 brightness, and +25 contrast. On top of that I usually add between +10 and +25 clarity and vibrance.

If the White Balance and Exposure don't give the adjustments I'm looking for, I'll tweak those in ACR.

Occasionally I'll multiple-process files in ACR - one processing for skin tones, another for hair and yet another for a garment, just as an example - and make them separate layers in the TIFF working file, add black masks to all the the base layer, and blend them together with a white brush. This is the exception though.

Occasionally I'll tweak the contrast curve - maybe 5% of the time.

Everything else is done in Photoshop.
Nov 07 13 12:59 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Dave McDermott
Posts: 374
Coill Dubh, Kildare, Ireland


DougBPhoto wrote:
That is a different topic, but it usually happens when someone does not have the sRGB profile embedded in the jpeg and/or the image is too large and their image servers resize it.

If you upload a version according to the site rules and with the profile in the file, the appearance of the image does not change.

I use the sRGB setting and upload photos according to the site rules. You have to adhere to the rules anyway or else the photo won't upload will it not? But because they have to be so small for this site, I always notice a difference in quality.

Nov 07 13 09:40 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,145
Buena Park, California, US


Dave McDermott wrote:
I use the sRGB setting and upload photos according to the site rules. You have to adhere to the rules anyway or else the photo won't upload will it not? But because they have to be so small for this site, I always notice a difference in quality.

MM has a file size limit, but I don't think they have a pixel limit.  They do, however, have a display limit of 800 pixels wide.  So if your image exceeds that, it will be resized to conform.

Make sure your image is no wider than 800 pixels and you should be able to see exactly what you upload.

There should be no difference in what you see here:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/portfolio/pic/34335898

versus here:

http://www.pbase.com/digitalcmh/image/1 … 6/original

18+!!!!

Nov 07 13 10:16 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
DougBPhoto
Posts: 38,229
Portland, Oregon, US


Dave McDermott wrote:

I use the sRGB setting and upload photos according to the site rules. You have to adhere to the rules anyway or else the photo won't upload will it not? But because they have to be so small for this site, I always notice a difference in quality.

If you upload images that are larger (than what the current width is, I think 800 pixels wide is the current) then the system will accept the image and it will resize it on its own and it WILL reduce the image quality.

If you upload an image of the proper size, in the proper format, the image will look just as good as it looks anywhere else.

Nov 07 13 10:22 am  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply