PU Gallery View

Again I'm noticing images uploaded to the PU gallery are having the colour and detail sucked out of them.

I uploaded this shot to the PU gallery, and EPZ.

PU Gallery:




EPZ:




And the large version on the PU gallery:




(Probably oversharpened, that last one, but I was taking account of the smaller 'default' gallery view being softer).

I don't see any difference between the shots, but of course they are now being displayed together in the forum.

When you upload, are you uploading very large files? 1000 pixels to 1500pixels on the longest side is big enough for the Gallery. I use 1000 pixels as that's the same size as EPZ e2 images, so it's convenient. Images look the same in both places. Overlarge images will be resized by the website, never a good idea.

Also check all uploaded images are sRGB. What you are seeing could be consistent with uploading AdobeRGB instead.

John the file is the same, srgb, 1000pixels ht file for both sites. The PU 'large version' view (the third image) is the image exactly as prepared for upload.

Both PU and EPZ have created smaller gallery views from this image (image 1 and 2). EPZ has retained the vibrancy whereas PU has produced an (admittedly slightly) duller image.

Try scrolling from image 1 (PU) to image 2 (EPZ) very quickly and you should see what I mean. Look at the dress and the sheen on the black paintwork.

Just to clarify, I have made a composite of both EPZ and PU gallery view images (the 600 pixel versions generated from the file I have uploaded):

Again, just to reiterate - these are from the same 1000px jpeg uploaded to both sites, and then processed into 600px 'Gallery Views' by each site.

The larger 1000px view on PU is unaffected.

The only thing you can do really is make a report to IT and ask them.

Cheers, have done so.

I've had these problems before Will. When I got a new laptop a few months back, the gallery images went completely to pot. After much investigation, I found that it was mostly due to the Photoshop / Adobe Camera RAW settings. Although both PS and Adobe Camera RAW stated that they were using SRGB, I had to go through all the settings in both programs and re-set them all. After doing this, all returned to relative normality.

My Photoshop colour settings are:

RGB: sRGB IEC61966-2.1
CMYK: US Web Coated (Swop) v2
Gray: Dot Gain 20%
Spot: Dot Gain 20%

RGB: Preserve Embedded Profile
CMYK: Preserve Embedded Profile
Gray: Preserve Embedded Profile

Adobe Camera RAW: sRGB IEC61966-2.1

All of my cameras are set to sRGB Colour Profile.

I hope this helps, but I do have to say that even though all my colour settings are consistent and also that I always re-size to 1000px on the longest side before uploading, the Gallery images are not as vibrant / detailed as the file I upload from. I've just compared this image which is on the Gallery with the same file on my PC, and the one on my PC is far better. Now, the really odd thing is that if I link to the Gallery Large View image to place it in this thread and compare it with the identical image freshly uploaded to this thread from my PC, the one that I've linked to from the Gallery Large View has got its vibrancy back, whereas the freshly uploaded one has lost something! I'm at a loss to explain this.

Linked from Gallery Large View version:



Fresh upload from original file:



Regards
David

It's all a bit confusing. But I like your grass snake shot. I spent almost my entire childhood in pursuit of these!

Did you find any?

We are lucky as they are resident in our garden, although they are still quite hard to find. I have seen some up to 5 or 6 feet in length on occasions.

I think I've gone a bit off-topic!

Cheers
David

Who cares we weren't getting anywhere, nor were we likely to! My dad used to work at Stevenson's Dyers at Ambergate. There were warm spots around the factory where the snakes liked to lay their eggs, and one year he brought home one of the many hatchling snakes that used to emerge. I loved that snake, and reared him on insects for a year before he was released back to the wilds of Cromford Canal!

I guess that kind of thing would be frowned on these days, but it hooked me on any thing to do with wildlife and conservation for life.

... Oh and re the gallery, I've decided it's best to upload a 600px image straight off the bat, and not let the gallery do any resizing. This doesn't appear to have any impact on IQ.

I am sure that is wise.

When we found baby snakes in the garden, which was not uncommon, we used to kill them. But they were puff adders and spitting cobras. Not nice neighbours.

My mother once found a large snake climbing the front door, which was mainly glass. She gave it both barrels of the shotgun, only to find, post mortem, that it was a harmless mole snake. Both snake and door were pronounced dead at the scene. Only the moles were pleased.

Life was different then.

Sorted, apparently -

Thanks, IT team!