Thanks Brian. This is always so useful to know. Is an overcast day better than a clear day for lighting quality?

Brian I am mostly self taught in photography and photoshop. Looks like I am going to have to accept that some of my images may not be acceptable due to misinformation I have received from other sources. I feel I have processed or enlarged images in ways I should not have. I am in the process of reviewing my old files to see if photos I have subbmitted to FAA can be resubmitted correctly. I appreciate your patience in getting me on the right track as far as submissions to FAA are concerned. Hard to teach an old dog new tricks but I think everything you have been saying has finally sunk in.

THANKS.

I may have to remove a couple of mine as well. I used Photozoom Pro thinking that was ok but am going to stick with the size things come in from now on :)

Brian, Thanks for this post. I just got a 14 mp Kodak compact digital camera for my birthday, but when I download the pictures from it to Photoshop they have very small dimensions - a little over 6" X 9". However, the pixel dimensions are around 3000 pixels by 4000 pixels. The resolution is a ridiculous 480 ppi, so I have been thinking about adjusting the dimensions to larger sizes (inches), while lowering the resolution to around 100 ppi. Based on this new information from your post, I now believe that it would be best to leave the pictures at the same settings as they are downloaded in Photoshop directly from the camera for the best prints. Is that right?

That’s why I say that FAA is a very good place, probably the best! Thank you, Brian, many times again. Due to Brian’s explanations and also due to kind advises of many FAA members, I understand now that the quality of many of my images, which I have uploaded to FAA, is far from good. I am an amateur and as such I am rather skeptical about marketability of my art. Nevertheless I understand that the poor quality of my images can cause problems and disappointments of possible buyers. Right now I am ready to do my best to replace any file for a better one if need be. The next year I am going to review my page, to clear it profoundly, to replace bad files with better ones or with a better artwork (if I can do any).
I saved Brian’s post from this discussion on my computer as a primary instruction, and I think that there should be a place on FAA, where everyone, including new members, could see that post.

I think it needs to be included in the POD instructions.-

If oyu look at the top of the main discussions there is now a link to Sticky Discussions and this is kept there.

My question?

Is it possible for you to distinguish between a blur in photo-reproduction from the possibly intentional blur present in the source?

I assume yes, when it is the pixel count that matters. But I suspect, the chances that someone may overlook this aspect are definitely not zero? Or?

This may also be true when observing a reproduction from plastic relief’s, where the depth of field may have been rendered in an amateur manner, as most of us do photograph with standard equipment. Is not possible or even probable that one may consider the picture as blurry?

My problem here is where I should lay the emphasis. A sort of an ethical question.

Faithfulness to the original?
Or emphasis on a for-print-optimised reproduction?


Because I notice often, if I sharpen an image, it usually goes at the cost of natural “bluriness” present in the artwork. Sometimes, it even becomes a far cry from what the original work represents to the naked eye. It does not invoke the same perceptual mental processes as does the original. I do more or less feel this when observing some photo-reproductions of my artworks. This is more true for abstract works of art. I generally prefer blur over sharpness, the latter makes the picture sometimes much too much two-dimensional. Most of the photo-editing programmes have a kind of quantum jumps from blur to sharpness, same applies to contrast and colours. Of course there are certainly some workarounds available here, but they are all time consuming, if you really are striving toward an authentic reproduction of your artwork. Sometimes I had to amend a nice looking optimal reproduction, even if it looked great, because I felt the original was not really like that.

Maybe the last problem could be solved by just mentioning: Image optimised for printing!

Thanks so much--this really helps!

I've noticed images that were sold here, when viewed up close, appear blocky or blurry.
Not trying to cause any trouble, but the image was blurred-like when viewed up close, sort of like the before image above.
I came to the conclusion that maybe the original image with the high resolution looked fine when printed. Hm...

Similar to Evelyn's post, IMHO the custom POD store images for shoppers are very blurry and lack detail compared to the original when viewed at the same screen size. This is likely due to too much file compression by FAA for these publicly view images. I know download speed can be an issue but at the size of the images viewed on FAA by the public (I'm guessing no more than 640x480), there is not a whole lot of speed lost between a low compression file and a high compression file. I think a sharp detailed image in this case outweighs any limited download speed gain since this is the only chance the shopper will have to determine the quality of the original image and how it may look in its printed form. It is dissappoining to strive for a sharp high quality detailed photo only to have it shown on FAA as a blurry low quality image, IMHO. I see on other POD sites (name withheld to protect the innocent! ;-) ) the sharpness of the original image is retained and can actually look sharper due to it being reduced in size for web viewing. My 2cents, take it for what it's worth...worth about the same in Canada!

Thanks Brian..........

Excellent info Brian - thanks very much.

@Beth: I'm going to do some more testing of PhotoZoom Pro 3 and publish the results to a new separate discussion, when I can find the time - and post a workflow to my blog. Could you (or anyone else) email me with your comments on your results with PhotoZoom Pro, if possible? Thanks!

Will do Jim, give me a little while

Thanks, Beth for the link back to this thread, I will diguest it later, lots to read and try and understand.

Lou

ok this all makes sense, but does anyone know how to check the compression level in say Piccassa 3, that's what I use.

Don't think there is a way to "check the compression" already applied to an image in any software product - if that's what you mean.

If you want to know how to control Picasa's own compression - please read on.

I don't use Google Picasa 3 for image processing, but recommend it highly as an image management database - and the email, album and online gallery features are great.

Had a look. After you double-click on an image to edit it, the compression feature is (right were it belongs) under the "Export" feature. It's called "Image Quality:" and there is a slider. The number shown is "Quality" from 1 to 100. That's the reciprocal of the compression amount. That is, 90% "Quality" = 10% Compression.

With most JPEG compressors like this, you want to stay at 80% quality or higher. You need to test it to know exactly - and of course it differs according to the makeup of each image.

Respond to posted by W above.
I'm new and just uploaded several BW photos and they look blurry on FAA. I'm glad to know that it is not me, but the system. I hope it gets corrected soon?

I ordered a 36x24 print of one of my photos and I am impressed with the print. Very good print quality Brian.

Hi Brian:
PARDON THE LENGTH OF THIS POST BUT maybe someone will find the info worthwhile

Thanks for the info. Probably one of the most honest and complete discussions by a site owner I have seen.

Regarding image quality of the thumbnails you see on FAA. It does look like there may be some "excessive" compression by FAA at work here, but without knowing Brian's compression criteria/groundrules its very hard for anyone to realistically comment. Anyone interested in this CRITICAL issue of image display for our clients ought to check out the forum thread on FAA at http://fineartamerica.com/showmessages.php?messageid=152314
I think Doug took a good approach to analyzing his image presentation. If, in fact, a majority of the artists who care to check things out and feel the images could/should be better on FAA could ask Brian to review and maybe change his process.

Regarding image capture at the camera level, I have been a professional wildlife and nature photographer since the 1980s and have seen a mind boggling array of technology, techniques and equipment over the last 10+ years with the advent of digital. However, one thing has ALWAYS remained true and Brian alluded to it above. GARBAGE IN, GARBAGE OUT. Make sure you use excellent techniques. Again, Brian made good comments about a tripod to minimize camera shake = blurry image/fuzziness- you CANNOT fix that in Photoshop. I would also recommend, in addition to a tripod, to really minimize vibration = blurriness = use a cable release and mirror lock up. You may be shooting at slow shutter speeds in the 1/30-1 second range. With 35mm cameras, you view the scene through the viewfinder (not talking about your LCD display) which shows you the image off a mirror inside the camera. When you press the shutter, the camera goes through several steps, one of the first of which is, it moves the mirror out of the way and then opens the shutter so light will be exposed on the film or semiconductor pixel array. The mirror movement and shutter opening occur very quickly (milliseconds) and moving the mirror so fast can make it "slap" against the frame. This translates into vibration that can seriously affect image sharpness.Use mirror lock-up: with your camera on a tripod and solidly locked down, frame the scene then lock up the mirror (not all cameras will have this capability - read your manual). Wait a count or two for mirror-slap to die away and then push the shutter using a cable release. If you push the shutter on the camera with your finger you can create movement or vibration. Using a cable release eliminates that problem. If you do not have mirror lock-up or a cable release I strongly recommend using shutter speeds of at least 1/125 of a second and preferably faster than that. Also, if you are using a long lens (telephoto) keep in mind the longer the telephoto lens you use the more vibration or movement will enter the equation because a telephoto lens will magnify motion just like it magnifies the image.

Also, to get the best image you can, do not capture in JPEG, capture in RAW or TIFF. Remember, if you capture your image in JPEG, it has already been compressed and processed by your in camera software BEFORE you ever download it. Then, when you download it, every time you make a change/edit/etc. your image and RESAVE it as a JPEG you lose additional quality as the software uses compression each time and you lose some additional image file information each time. I recommend you capture your image in RAW and bring it in to your computer software to process as a RAW file. Your software, like Photoshop, will have a RAW converter that will convert your file information so that you can process/edit/etc. in Photoshop. Then save your file as a .dng file or as a TIFF file. These are lossless compression files (yes they are bigger but they are also better). Then, when you want to send the file to FAA, and only then, convert to jpeg to upload and make sure you select the highest quality which is 12 in Photoshop (I think Brian now offers another file format for upload but I don't remember which one). Keep in mind, all your images uploaded to date have been.jpeg so when Brian gets the high quality jpeg he stores the high quality image for printing but he converts the jpeg again to the thumbnail so you will get some level of degradation in the image. REMEMBER TOO: if you did not upload the highest quality jpeg to begin with, you are not providing Brian with the best image to start with. Whether it will be noticeable or not is impossible to say except on a specific image basis.

I would also like to make one comment regarding Brian's statement about getting a camera with the largest file size you can: 5 MB is better than 2MB; 10MB is better than 5BM. All things being equal, that is true. However, in today's digital world, that is not always true. You have to know a lot about the noise reduction software, on semiconductor pixel capture area size, on camera filters, etc. to really make a knowledgeable decision about what camera offers the best solution for your needs. Larger file sizes do translate to larger prints, but if the image file is not that good to begin with, the print will not look good at any size. From my perspective, the cameras offered by Canon and Nikon are pretty much the industry standards today for 35mm work. They have the best technology, best noise suppression and best supporting lens array. Speaking of lenses, what was not discussed above, the quality of the lens you choose will have a tremendous effect on the quality of your image. For those of you considering photographing flat artwork like paintings, I would suggest getting one of the Canon or Nikon 60mm macro lenses. Not that you are going to use these lenses for close up work (although you might depending on your artwork subject) these lenses are optimized for flat field sharpness and are generically some of the sharpest lenses out there. Again, excellent technique, excellent equipment and excellent post processing lead to excellent images.

This may be more "crap" than people want to read but it can make the difference between an excellent image to display your work = >$$$ or not.

I cannot/should not go into all the details involved in the above since I don't want to hijack/overwhelm the thread but would be happy to try and answer any questions if anyone wants to email me.

Stay well Shoot often
Dave