Results 1 to 20 of 20

Thread: JPG Compression Rejection

  1. #1
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    5

    Default JPG Compression Rejection

    Hello,

    My first uploads on Jetphotos were not really a success and got all rejected. Next to some issues like contrast/brightness I also saw the "JPG Compression" as argument.
    I am indeed having problems with this.
    Most of my pictures are original something of 4750x3100 px ; which ofcourse needs to be reduced to 1280x....px

    I don't really know how to reduce the pictures properly. For my first uploads I used some online site (http://www.picresize.com/) where I could reduce them to the correct size, but the final image size was just sad, resulting in a justly rejection here at jetphotos.

    So my question is, with which website/program do you reduce your pictures to the accepted 1280x...px, but still having an acceptable image quality?

    Thanks in advance,
    Kind regards,
    Aarjen

    ----
    EDIT: I'm not shure, but maybe this topic shoudl have been posted in "Digital Photo Processing Forum"? If so, can a mod move it?

  2. #2
    JPElite Member! TomEPKK's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Krakow/Geneva
    Posts
    187

    Default

    You should have received photo processing software with your camera. If not, there are few free (i.e. ACDSee) or paid (i.e.Photoshop) photo processing applications you may use.
    Please note that resizing might be not the only reason of compression.
    By the way - it would be easier to help if you link your rejected picture

  3. #3
    Junior Member jvdl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by aarjen.peeters View Post
    Hello,

    My first uploads on Jetphotos were not really a success and got all rejected. Next to some issues like contrast/brightness I also saw the "JPG Compression" as argument.
    I am indeed having problems with this.
    Most of my pictures are original something of 4750x3100 px ; which ofcourse needs to be reduced to 1280x....px

    I don't really know how to reduce the pictures properly. For my first uploads I used some online site (http://www.picresize.com/) where I could reduce them to the correct size, but the final image size was just sad, resulting in a justly rejection here at jetphotos.

    So my question is, with which website/program do you reduce your pictures to the accepted 1280x...px, but still having an acceptable image quality?

    Thanks in advance,
    Kind regards,
    Aarjen

    ----
    EDIT: I'm not shure, but maybe this topic shoudl have been posted in "Digital Photo Processing Forum"? If so, can a mod move it?
    For a free app which can do the basics of editing, sharpening, and resizing, look into Paint.NET (https://www.getpaint.net/).

  4. #4
    JetPhotos.Net Crew Julian S.'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Location
    near EDFH, Germany
    Posts
    324

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TomEPKK View Post
    You should have received photo processing software with your camera. If not, there are few free (i.e. ACDSee) or paid (i.e.Photoshop) photo processing applications you may use.
    Please note that resizing might be not the only reason of compression.
    By the way - it would be easier to help if you link your rejected picture
    Or, another good alternative is the old but good Photoshop CS2.
    You can download it for free here: http://www.chip.de/downloads/c1_down...592801&v=3600& (Yes, it is really free as i used it too before i have bought PS Elements 15 and PS LR6)
    If you Install it, you get asked for the Serial: If you have a Windows Device, enter 1045-1412-5685-1654-6343-1431. For Macintosh type in 1045-0416-0358-5412-9836-4972.
    CS2 should be a good start for edit your Pics.

    Have fun and good luck
    Best Regards from Germany,
    Julian S.​

  5. #5
    Junior Member jvdl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Posts
    71

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Julian S. View Post
    Or, another good alternative is the old but good Photoshop CS2.
    You can download it for free here: http://www.chip.de/downloads/c1_down...592801&v=3600& (Yes, it is really free as i used it too before i have bought PS Elements 15 and PS LR6)
    If you Install it, you get asked for the Serial: If you have a Windows Device, enter 1045-1412-5685-1654-6343-1431. For Macintosh type in 1045-0416-0358-5412-9836-4972.
    CS2 should be a good start for edit your Pics.

    Have fun and good luck
    You can also download it directly from Adobe's site, but it's worth noting that these downloads are only considered legitimately licenced for people who bought and owned CS2 back in the day.

  6. #6
    Junior Member mahagonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Bari
    Posts
    73

    Default

    hi
    I would like to know how you "reduce" your photos.
    I explain. If by reduction you mean to cut, then you should have used a tool for this (eg cutter for photoshop or something similar for other online programs) and this does not cause jpg compression problems.
    If, however, you do a "downsizing", ie only change the size of your files, then the problem of the compression jpg is big.
    In fact, with a change in size, the whole file is "squashed".
    So, I advise you to "cut out" and not to "resize" your photos.
    Sorry my bad english.

  7. #7
    JetPhotos.Net Crew LX-A343's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Zurich Kloten - LSZH
    Posts
    13,059

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by mahagonny View Post
    hi
    I would like to know how you "reduce" your photos.
    I explain. If by reduction you mean to cut, then you should have used a tool for this (eg cutter for photoshop or something similar for other online programs) and this does not cause jpg compression problems.
    If, however, you do a "downsizing", ie only change the size of your files, then the problem of the compression jpg is big.
    In fact, with a change in size, the whole file is "squashed".
    So, I advise you to "cut out" and not to "resize" your photos.
    Sorry my bad english.
    That is not correct.

    Resizing does not cause JPG compression artefacts. After levelling and cropping the photo, resize it to the dimensions needed (i.e. reduce width from for example 4000 pixels to 1280 or 1600 pixels). Depending on the software used, there are different ways to reduce photo size, with different results.

    After that you can save the photo. And here it is important to use max. photo quality or no JPG compression for saving the photo.

  8. #8
    Member crisquijano's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2017
    Location
    Costa Rica (MROC)
    Posts
    248

    Default

    Aarjen,
    My two cents. Go a back a bit on the format you are shooting and then the processing of your photos> if it is JPG and you apply too much adjustments like brightness and contrasts that may be the cause. My advice is to shoot in RAW and use the free software provided with your camera if you don't have access to Photoshop or Lightroom.

  9. #9
    Junior Member Harlequin67's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    Near LHR
    Posts
    81

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by crisquijano View Post
    Aarjen,
    My two cents. Go a back a bit on the format you are shooting and then the processing of your photos> if it is JPG and you apply too much adjustments like brightness and contrasts that may be the cause. My advice is to shoot in RAW and use the free software provided with your camera if you don't have access to Photoshop or Lightroom.
    I cannot agree with going to RAW at this persons stage on the photo processing learning curve. The large JPEG has quite a lot of adjustment still available for editing. RAW is something that a more experienced editor of photos would appreciate the larger range of adjustment available.

    I will just give my basic workflow.

    1. Rotate the picture so that the horizon is level or vertical structures are showing correctly.
    2. Adjust brightness and contrast, adjust colour settings, and remove dustspots.
    3. Crop shot, suggest keeping the original photo ratio.
    4. Resize image from 4500+ pixels to 1280 pixels or whatever is desired. On some software there is different resize options, for smooth curves and "Bicubic" methods etc. I suggest trial and error testing on those settings.
    5. Sharpen image, again trial error on the various methods to get the best results on screen.

    Sometimes you edit a shot and and your work process above can create an awful image.....undo the changes and try again. Do that a few times and if you are still getting a bad edit then try editing another image. In my experience some images cannot be edited and get a good end result, for either yourself or for sending here.

    The original poster did not mention if they were using a laptop or a PC. The monitors on either can affect the perceived end result, my laptop makes everything appear bright. So on my PC they look too dark. Again, if you can try different hardware options, if available.

    I hope the original poster finds their workflow.
    May the Sun be with you. Resist the darkside.

  10. #10
    Administrator seahawk's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2004
    Location
    Germany - near DUS
    Posts
    7,747

    Default

    I agree with you. Going to RAW is too much for a person who does not even know how to resize a pic.

    The Gimp https://www.gimp.org/ had a recent update that improved it a lot. It is free and probably the most powerful free editing software. But it is not easy to use.

  11. #11
    Junior Member mahagonny's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2017
    Location
    Bari
    Posts
    73

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Harlequin67 View Post
    I cannot agree with going to RAW at this persons stage on the photo processing learning curve. The large JPEG has quite a lot of adjustment still available for editing. RAW is something that a more experienced editor of photos would appreciate the larger range of adjustment available.

    I will just give my basic workflow.

    1. Rotate the picture so that the horizon is level or vertical structures are showing correctly.
    2. Adjust brightness and contrast, adjust colour settings, and remove dustspots.
    3. Crop shot, suggest keeping the original photo ratio.
    4. Resize image from 4500+ pixels to 1280 pixels or whatever is desired. On some software there is different resize options, for smooth curves and "Bicubic" methods etc. I suggest trial and error testing on those settings.
    5. Sharpen image, again trial error on the various methods to get the best results on screen.

    Sometimes you edit a shot and and your work process above can create an awful image.....undo the changes and try again. Do that a few times and if you are still getting a bad edit then try editing another image. In my experience some images cannot be edited and get a good end result, for either yourself or for sending here.

    The original poster did not mention if they were using a laptop or a PC. The monitors on either can affect the perceived end result, my laptop makes everything appear bright. So on my PC they look too dark. Again, if you can try different hardware options, if available.

    I hope the original poster finds their workflow.
    I think that if he is inexperienced, learning to learn, he can learn how to process RAW.

  12. #12
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    area around EDWW
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Hello all,

    sorry for digging out this thread, it's no hijack, but I've taken the latest thread with this topic to avoid a new one.
    I got two rejections today, also with "jpg compression artefacts". Where and how can I detect them with my program? I shoot RAW, convert into .dng by LR classic and do the first tunings, thereafter convert into final .jpg with Zoner after limiting the sizes into the necessary size, usually I choose 1200x800 in 3:2 or the affililiate size in 16:9. I'm really clueless meanwhile. Where do the screeners detect these damned artefacts?

    Or may one step between RAW - (dng - 1. jpg @LR) - 2. jpg (Zoner) be the error in processing? Usually I get poor or bad post processing as rejection reason, today it was surprisingly artefacts and artefacts + soft - without any further or deeper process actions before, so I guess my RAW must have been of good quality due to a slightly touch of post processing...
    In the self-check menu after rejection is no sub-menu for artefacts. in my program is also no artefact-detector.

    The common advice was to take the free OEM software given by camera-manufacturer, would be the Oly Viewer 3.0 for me. Sorry but this is an absolutely annoying software - not bad in in the result but horrible in handling and also no check-box for the reasons that are used here for rejections...

    The pics are these, until now they were hot, now they are "state of the art":

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6627687

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6627685

    Greets Andreas

  13. #13
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluebee View Post
    Hello all,

    sorry for digging out this thread, it's no hijack, but I've taken the latest thread with this topic to avoid a new one.
    I got two rejections today, also with "jpg compression artefacts". Where and how can I detect them with my program? I shoot RAW, convert into .dng by LR classic and do the first tunings, thereafter convert into final .jpg with Zoner after limiting the sizes into the necessary size, usually I choose 1200x800 in 3:2 or the affililiate size in 16:9. I'm really clueless meanwhile. Where do the screeners detect these damned artefacts?

    Or may one step between RAW - (dng - 1. jpg @LR) - 2. jpg (Zoner) be the error in processing? Usually I get poor or bad post processing as rejection reason, today it was surprisingly artefacts and artefacts + soft - without any further or deeper process actions before, so I guess my RAW must have been of good quality due to a slightly touch of post processing...
    In the self-check menu after rejection is no sub-menu for artefacts. in my program is also no artefact-detector.

    The common advice was to take the free OEM software given by camera-manufacturer, would be the Oly Viewer 3.0 for me. Sorry but this is an absolutely annoying software - not bad in in the result but horrible in handling and also no check-box for the reasons that are used here for rejections...

    The pics are these, until now they were hot, now they are "state of the art":

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6627687

    https://www.jetphotos.com/viewqueued_b.php?id=6627685

    Greets Andreas
    I'd guess the last step is where you're going wrong. RAW to .dng shouldn't involve any form of compression, but converting to jpeg does, so likely there. If you'd like you can send me one of the raw files, and I can try running it though a different process to see if there is better results.

  14. #14
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    area around EDWW
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlowwa View Post
    ...
    If you'd like you can send me one of the raw files, and I can try running it though a different process to see if there is better results.
    Wow, that's quite a nice offer. I'll try to send one tomorrow - hopefully my connection will not collapse...

    Greets Andreas

  15. #15
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    area around EDWW
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Hi there,

    to get a reference, I did process one of those above and another one through the Oly viewer, same size but with different settings. Is there any significiant change or improvement in compression? I was focussed on compression - light, brightness, colours etc. were of secondary importance for me but I moved the bars slightly. As I wrote, this program is horrible in handling and is very coarse stepped in the tuning bars. Tell me, what you think about this compression result. I guess they will be seen at least underexposed + oversaturrated + undersharpened + overcontrasted - that would be a hint to move the OV-bars more than I did.

    Greets Andreas
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	110618_MG1.jpg 
Views:	10 
Size:	447.4 KB 
ID:	16546   Click image for larger version. 

Name:	110618_MG4.jpg 
Views:	8 
Size:	388.1 KB 
ID:	16547  

  16. #16
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluebee View Post
    Hi there,

    to get a reference, I did process one of those above and another one through the Oly viewer, same size but with different settings. Is there any significiant change or improvement in compression? I was focussed on compression - light, brightness, colours etc. were of secondary importance for me but I moved the bars slightly. As I wrote, this program is horrible in handling and is very coarse stepped in the tuning bars. Tell me, what you think about this compression result. I guess they will be seen at least underexposed + oversaturrated + undersharpened + overcontrasted - that would be a hint to move the OV-bars more than I did.

    Greets Andreas
    Ok, I did a quick edit of the original you sent me, and the good (bad) news is it's mostly down to your (lack of) editing skills

    While the original image is relatively soft, the resolution is high enough that this can easily be hidden at 1200 pixels with a good edit. You can compare the edit I have attached to your newer edit, which does look better.

    Steps:

    RAW conversion to Jpeg (adjusting exposure)
    Crop
    Sharpening/contrast
    Resizing to 1200
    Final sharpening
    Save

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	P6111106_1.jpg 
Views:	16 
Size:	671.7 KB 
ID:	16550

    Any questions, let me know.

  17. #17
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    area around EDWW
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Thanks for your support and your time, that's quite a helpful guidance. So I can generally trust on this Olympus software for further attempts. PS-trial is to be done later to get more results for my process control.

    There's a question, that bothers me for a while now:
    Am I right that most members here use TFT or flatscreen-monitors or are here still tubes in use? I'm not really sure if I judge my pics wrong due to monitor or probably because I'm still not really used to wear glasses for computer purposes. Sometimes a combination of such factors in combination is underrated. I have no reference concerning that issue.

    Greets Andreas

  18. #18
    JetPhotos.Net Crew
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    2,748

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bluebee View Post
    Thanks for your support and your time, that's quite a helpful guidance. So I can generally trust on this Olympus software for further attempts. PS-trial is to be done later to get more results for my process control.

    There's a question, that bothers me for a while now:
    Am I right that most members here use TFT or flatscreen-monitors or are here still tubes in use? I'm not really sure if I judge my pics wrong due to monitor or probably because I'm still not really used to wear glasses for computer purposes. Sometimes a combination of such factors in combination is underrated. I have no reference concerning that issue.

    Greets Andreas
    By 'tube' you mean CRT? Not since ~ 2003-2004 for me.

    As for editing software, I'd recommend looking for an older version of PS. I still use CS5, which I think is around 8 years old now. More than enough for editing photos.

  19. #19
    Senior Member brianw999's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Tunbridge Wells, Kent. UK.
    Posts
    11,627

    Default

    You can get the very latest Adobe Bridge combined with Adobe Photoshop CC for a monthly payment of, in my case GB£9.95. For that you get the latest software with regular updates.
    If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !


  20. #20
    Junior Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Location
    area around EDWW
    Posts
    7

    Default

    Good morning Brian and LOWWA,

    I tried my PS yesterday - the current (updated to CC18 ) PS is not my world, I should try one of the the recommended versions. Perhaps that will fit better for me.

    But I did check my LR version and found an embarrassing detail:
    the export settings still had been on default, that means compression quality @60% and sharpness @standard (~80%) ...
    I had several updates and relaunches in the past so I did not remind those settings. I was surprised to get better quality visible for me and significiant smaller file-sizes at once...

    So I'm finally glad to have asked for experienced support here. Hopefully from now it'll turn out better

    Regards
    Andreas

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •