Ryan Diggs - JPG Compression Artifacts/editing advice

[verplanken]

There just two of the examples, and yes I know the second one is a little soft. The full res ones look so sharp but when resized to 1600 x, it just absolutely destroys the quality.

Hello Ryan,

When you process an image, one of the first thing you have to do is to resize it at the end format (i.e. 1600 in your case). THEN, but never before, you can start sharpening it.
If you resize AFTER sharpening, you cannot control the final result.
Of course once your processing is finished you save the image at the highest quality (12 in PhotoShop)... Seeing your pictures, I am sure you do that....

Eric (not a screener, just trying to do my best...)

[dlowwa]

The full res ones look so sharp but when resized to 1600 x, it just absolutely destroys the quality.

I think you've answered your own question. Whatever you're doing to resize the images is compressing them far more than needed in the process. Without knowing more, can't really say other than the obvious to make sure you're saving the images at maximum quality. It should be a hint though, that your images are 1600pix, but only 140kb. I'd expect images of that dimension to be twice the size.

[Ryan Diggs]

I've recently had four images screened, with all be rejected by the "JPG compression artifacts" rejection. I'm not quite sure how you can fix or change this from happening. I've had this happen maybe on one image out of every twenty I put in the queue but not all four at once. Could someone please explain to mean what it means and how to fix it?

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6526297

https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6526298

There just two of the examples, and yes I know the second one is a little soft. The full res ones look so sharp but when resized to 1600 x, it just absolutely destroys the quality.