Photo upload results in poor quality

Before I get in to this I am aware there is another forum post on this topic. And I am aware of its content and fixes all of which I already do anyway. Basically I have just uploaded two photos of a Thomson 787, which here on my PC look very nice indeed. But after uploading both the photos to AP.net there was a considerable amount of degradation in image quality. I have absolutely no idea why this should be, as I have not had that problem here before ?

I am saving the image in sRGB as always and I always use the Save for web option on CS5. After uploading both the images it was very obvious the image quality was just not right, there seemed to be more noise and in particular the titles were smeared and lost a lot of sharpness and definition. This was more noticeable than anything else. It looked like there was some added compression as around the smaller titles there was some bleeding of colour that looked smudged.

I am absolutely meticulous in my editing workflow as some of you may already know. I have gone over everything in the process to make sure I have not made a mistake somewhere, so I am at a bit of a loss why this has happened ? In the end the loss of quality was enough for me to remove the images.

Any comments or suggestions would be gratefully appreciated indeed.

Ian Marsh.

This post has been edited by Ian Marsh on 14th May 2014 - 18:07

I don't even upload some photos I have now because I know they won't look right, I only save for web for uploads to A-P as I know that if I don't the quality will suffer badly after upload. I still get a problem with reds and oranges looking soft. Any other site I upload to including Flickr I get no quality issues at all.

I don't even upload some photos I have now because I know they won't look right, I only save for web for uploads to A-P as I know that if I don't the quality will suffer badly after upload. I still get a problem with reds and oranges looking soft. Any other site I upload to including Flickr I get no quality issues at all.

Darryl,

Thanks for the feedback mate. The area worst affected are the reds on the two photos in question. The Thomson red titles look absolutely awful when uploaded to here, really smudged and bleeding of colour as well as being very soft. I have just uploaded them to two other websites and they look fine there with no problems at all.

Ian.

Exactly what I get Ian, gets frustrating but it's been like it for ages with no solution to anything, maybe Martin can explain the problem if any?

This post has been edited by Darryl Morrell on 10th May 2014 - 18:33

That's a damn shame, I really wanted to upload both of them here, but the quality is just not up to my personal standards after viewing them when uploaded. I was never aware of the issue before to be honest. Hope someone can find a fix to it in the future.

Ian.

Its a real shame as A-P is a good site but when ever something is flagged up like this its never solved and all you hear is alternative ways of editing your photos.

Tell me more about reds..

Attached photos:

Hmmm, interesting. I 've been having a lot of issues around noise in the sky, yes I know it's a common issue at times. On my mac at 6000 and 1024 pixels it's fine but when it's uploaded the noise is there, I just thought it was me but now Im not too sure

Dave

Kamil, that looks to me that it's either over processed or de-saturated

I'm really hoping the guys here at AP.net can have a good look in to the problem as it does exist. To me it looks like some sort of compression issue.

This issue has been dragging on for some time now and there seems to be the initial, "there is a problem message" from the member , then the usual, "can you send me the file" response from Martin and then invariably the thread goes dead.

There is never any sort of definitive answer to this question.

Anyway, I decided to run a test on this image that I uploaded yesterday

Comparing it against the image that I uploaded against a copied image from the screen.

My preferred method is the to put one image on a different layer and change the blend mode of one to Difference. Unfortunately the detail on the Difference blend mode picture is hard to discern, the only immediate difference was a little degradation of the reds in the engine air inlet cover so I then changed the blend mode from Difference to Divide, which shows the differences between the two photos.

To be objective, I ran the same test, on a different image on a picture that I uploaded to JetPhotos.net http://www.jetphotos.net/viewphoto.php?id=7811387 and I have to say the differences between the picture that I uploaded and the picture that I copied from the screen is very distinctive. I have attached the Divide and Difference blend mode screen shots.

Has anyone tried to compare the difference between an uploaded image to say, Airliners or Jet Photos.net as well as AP?

As an after thought, the difference may possibly be due to the uploaded picture having an embedded ICC sRGB IEC61966-2.1 profile being compared against the profile of what I know I have an uncalibrated monitor profile.

This gets tricky but I think the problem may be due to the differences in monitor profiles and the ICC profiles of the image and the web site that you upload to. It is difficult to express exactly what I think is wrong but I need to buy another calibrator and it is worth rerunning this test with a known calibrated monitor so the screen grabs are unquestionable.

This post has been edited by Wallace Shackleton on 11th May 2014 - 05:45

Attached photos:

The reason why I ask for sending me the copy of the photo is to check the colour profile. In many cases the photographer uploads photo with other profile than sRGB, which results in dramatic loss of colour. I think this is the case Kamil presented above. Kamil, could you check the colour profile of the original photo?

On the upload to AP the photo quality is decreased very slightly, which is balanced out by the significant decrease of the size of the photo file. The size difference is dramatic, in many cases the photo uploaded to AP would be displayed on the visitor's screen in nearly half the time. It is a trade-off situation between absolutely perfect photo quality and faster loading time.

Having a look at the Wallace's test it is clear that JP adjusts photos on upload as well, possibly for the same reason.

This post has been edited by Martin Krupka on 11th May 2014 - 09:33

I have uploaded literally 1000s to a whole host of websites over the years at all sorts of sizes, even ATI at over 3000px with no quality issues. When i first started uploading to A-P the quality was excellent after upload so surely the upload coding is doing something in between pressing upload and viewing the photo. Photos that are mainly red and orange , unless you save to web come out with a dramatic loss in quality, I can privide any photo link if requested which are not saved to web from other sites i have them on and upload the same photo to A-P if admin want a comparison

The two photos in question that I uploaded here (and then deleted) are also uploaded on a different website right now, (netAirspace) with absolutely no quality issues at all. They are also in the Que on another website (Planespotters.net) again with no quality problems. Same again with my Flickr account, no problems. However Plane-mad.com had the same affect on the image as it had here with the softness and compression, needles to say I removed them both from the Que there too. I am sure there must be a way around it.

Darryl,

Even when I saved my two images "for web" the image quality was still affected quite dramatically. As a photographer I would much rather have a slower loading time and to see the image for its real quality.

This post has been edited by Ian Marsh on 11th May 2014 - 10:17

I just noticed that in the Photoshop CC version of Save for the Web there is a facility to embed the colour profile...

Wallace, I never enable that when saving a photo. Do you think that maybe the answer ?

Why should all this messing around with the images only apply here?

Darryl,

Yesterday I also noticed that Plane-mad.com does the same to my Thomson 787 photos as it does here. I have sent samples and links to Martin as he requested them from me. So I am hoping there is a chance it can be fixed in time. Fingers crossed.

I think it almost certainly has to do with the color profile. I had the same problem a couple of months ago. Here's my hint: Put your camera to Adobe RGB settings, use Lightroom to export your pictures you want to upload (In the Export screen you can find the color profile you want to embed to your pictures, this might - in my case it did - solve the problem). I know it looks almost the same as Wallace's explanation, but nonetheless worth a try ;)

Let me know how things work out for you!

Daan, nothing works out if the uploaded picture is half the size than the original, and I'm not talking about colors now, I'm talking, for example, about digital noise added to the pictures when the web compress them. I'm suffering this at this very moment, with a picture in screening waiting for a second opinion. The reasons to ask for that second opinion are the famous "Digital noise is visible. JPG compression is visible. " The size of the uploaded picture is 60% of the original size.

How do the screeners expect perfection if we can't control what we are trying to upload?

I was actually giving a possible solution to Ian's problem, Manuel.

So now on to you. I suppose you do not resize your picture manually, but with a third party software like Ps or Lr that does the trick for you? I resize the images according to Angelo's workflow from YouTube (check the link below) and I don't seem to have problems with that at all. The only thing times that Digital Noise is visible is given to me as a rejection of my pictures is because I processed the images with some filter from the NIK software pack.

So, if you are saving your pictures from Ps, just leave the JPEG compression at the highest as possible. This makes sure the quality is being preserved. If you want to resize them, do it during the editing and not post-processing with one of the previous mentioned software suites.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sccx5Gcv3rc

I was actually giving a possible solution to Ian's problem, Manuel.

So now on to you. I suppose you do not resize your picture manually, but with a third party software like Ps or Lr that does the trick for you? I resize the images according to Angelo's workflow from YouTube (check the link below) and I don't seem to have problems with that at all. The only thing times that Digital Noise is visible is given to me as a rejection of my pictures is because I processed the images with some filter from the NIK software pack.

So, if you are saving your pictures from Ps, just leave the JPEG compression at the highest as possible. This makes sure the quality is being preserved. If you want to resize them, do it during the editing and not post-processing with one of the previous mentioned software suites.

I hope this works out for you! Happy to hear the results.

Regards,

Daan

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sccx5Gcv3rc

The only solution to Ians problem is if the problem causing it during upload is solved as i get the same problem aswell, if 99% of other sites are ok then an underlying problem exisits on A-P somwhere. You should not have to be able to for instance upload to a site no problem then have to make sure your colour profiles are ok just to upload on here, something is wrong somewhere but im afraid its not being addressed as its been happening for ages now which is a real shame

Something is definitely wrong in A-P. Yesterday I got rejected a picture for compression noise, and the screener claimed the picture was just 257kB. However, I checked the file I actually uploaded, and it is 427kB! So almost half of my picture was lost on its way to screening :-(

I wish someone is able to fix this because I do enjoy uploading my photos here.

Daan, my apologies if you felt that I was interfering in your conversation with Ian. I just took your last sentence as the beginning of my complain. You can do anythig you want with a picture, but you can NOT control the quality of the uploaded picture, that's my point.

My picture was finally rejected (JPG compression is visible, qalimar dixit) although I explained them why were they watching a very very very slight banding, Banding is as you may know a side effect of compression. How can I control banding in a picture based in gradient colors if the compression kills 40% of my picture???

Have you ever wondered why most of the contrails are uploaded with black skies? Yes, you are right, because it's quite impossible that a blue sky is accepted due to the degradation during upload (digital noise and jpeg compression show up).

The only one (aviation) web where creative pictures can be accepted, but they are not accepted because of the web. It has not sense...

PS: this is my rejected picture (with loads of digital noise and jpg compression, of course)

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/rejected-images/2014-5/402795.jpg

Hiiiii!

The solution may be to let us upload pictures as Tiff, you make the screening proccess with the Tiff and after that make your jpg settings to add to your web; also let us to delete the picture if the result of your settings are not agree with our quality standars.

Other way is to make a plugin to Photoshop, Lightroom, and other software, to upload the final JPG from our computers with your footer and watermark

Greets !

MaQui.-)

With greatest respect Maqui, i hear what you are saying but that just avoiding the issue people are saying, noone wants to keep messing around with everything they just want one photo that can be uploaded to any website with no fuss

Good to see this topic has moved on a little again. I have sent the two photos in question as well as links to them on other websites to members of staff here at AP.net. I am led to believe they are working on a possible solution to the problem, so fingers crossed they can fix it.

I was also experiencing some slight increase in noise too on the Thomson shots after uploading them here. My main problem was with the compression and softness and bleeding of colour and an overall loss of definition. Thank you Daan for the tips much appreciated mate.

Airplane-Pictures is one of the best websites around for showing off your work, I am sure they can eliminate these issues we are having.

Ian.

This post has been edited by Ian Marsh on 17th May 2014 - 18:25

Compression banding is caused by too much compression!

The shades of blue in a sky have a wide range of subtle variations and this wide range is lost when compressing them down, they are approximated to the next suitable hue an the gamut hence the banding

Try and work with as large an image size as possible, 1600 pixels is the maximum and I try and keep the image size to below 1.4MB.

Another time I see banding is when I use too much processing, some "enhancement" programs cause more trouble than they are worth.

It may be worth mentioning that Bicubic Sharpen is the best way of reducing the image size.

Uploading as TIFFs is not a practical option, TIFFs are such a big file and in the end they have to be converted from 16 bit TIFFs to 8 bit JPEGs and that means even more compression.

As for noise I would stay away from global unsharp mask sharpening as this creates noise, which may be exacerbated by the image compression.

Agreed Wallace on the unsharp mask. Its probably the worst way to sharpen an image.

This post has been edited by Ian Marsh on 17th May 2014 - 20:30

This is an interesting topic. Ive had 3 photos rejected in 3 days for "Main object is not sharp". Yet when I processed the shots my first thought was how sharp they were. I was very happy with them.

Ive shown them to 2 other photographers, one of which is an experienced wildlife photographer who is obsessed with sharpness. None of them think the images are unsharp.

Im using a Canon 100/400 lens that has notched up 1000 images on Jetphotos.net.

I might also make the observation that one particular screener is the most frequent rejector of my images for this 'main object not sharp' reason......

I would think that if you could get a photo accepted on JP for sharpness then it should be acceptable on AP for sharpness as well. However I too have found the standards at JP to be "embarrassingly" higher than my own so the screeners there don't seem to miss much in the way of bad images. :)

I would hate for the fault to be attributed to an inadequacy in the AP screeners monitor it is possible but seeing that our screeners are accomplished photographers themselves that should not really be an issue, so it does point to a problem with the way the image is processed.

Then again there are times when a sharpness rejections should have been attributed to an exposure problem.

I wonder if anyone would care to post copies of their rejected images. Earlier on I outlined how to compare the colour differences between a screen grab and the uploaded image in Photoshop, it may be worth trying this to see if the image has been corrupted in any way. The only person that can do this with accuracy is the person that posted the picture.

The problem can not be fixed without a body of proof to say that there is a problem with the uploaded images to AP, otherwise it's just here say.

This post has been edited by Wallace Shackleton on 18th May 2014 - 04:21

Ill post a couple later. Just one other observation Id like to make on my issue. Recently Ive taken several photos within the same hour long session. No change in conditions and often no change in camera settings. When these photos are submitted, often in no particular order and sometimes days after, I get unsharp rejections from this one particular screener, yet photos taken in that same period accepted by different screeners.

So the point Im trying to make is that the photos from the session cant differ much, but different screeners interpret the shot differently.

Im not here to gripe or moan, complain or criticise. I love this site and Ive learned heaps in the time Ive been posting and viewing. Its a fabulous site and not only do I love the anticipation of posting here, I love looking at other members stunning shots too.

I know the screeners do this voluntarily in their own time, hats off to them. That said, I hike through muddy fields with a heavy rucksack to get some of my shots. And I do feel that one particular screener has somewhat of an overly strict approach, particularly regarding 'main subject not sharp'. Im sorry to say Im getting to the point where Im dreading him screening my photos.

I will post some examples soon when on the correct device.

Garfield

I dont think standards are embaressingly high at all on here, I cant believe people get rejections for a photo being slightly soft when this site is just turning into a site where all most want to do is upload an overexposed over processed grunge shot and call it creative and it gets accepted.

I have to agree with you there Darryl about some of the images that are appearing.

However it takes all sorts and to be different means having to accept that some images while they may not be to our personal tastes and undoubtedly high standards they are acceptable and indeed likeable to others.

Try not to gag and keep on uploading the kind of photos that maintain your high standards. Good photos will always shine over the bad ones.

Garfield, one has to accept that screeners do not screen consistently. They are humans and are fallible, the screeners are AP's greatest asset in that a wide range of tastes can be catered for and unfortunately if you get the proverbial stickler of a screener then he will be demanding a high standard.

All I can suggest is to appeal their decision and maintain a civil and polite tone with your appeal stating your case why the photo is acceptable. You have nothing to loose by making an appeal and everything to gain and you never know you may gain some insight from the appeal.

Coming up are 3 images that were rejected for Main object not sharp.

Before even mentioning these images I made sure to check with two other photographers. One of which has 1000 photos on JP, using the very lens I have now .I bought it from him,weve become good friends and if he sees a bad shot one of mine he tells me. He`s not just a yes man.

I sent him these two pictures this morning and this was his reply

..."I cannot understand their logic in this. Only the TCX looks a bit soft (see the airline titles), the rest look sharp enough to me.

Maybe put the pictures into their forum and ask for some feedback?

They might be able to steer you in the direction they are looking for?"

He is Murtaza Sattar. Check his shots on JP

This post has been edited by Garfield Moreton on 18th May 2014 - 12:07

Attached photos:

This is the Thomas Cook after going through the High Pass filter. And on closer inspection I personally dont like the results. I feel it introduces a scratchy grainy look when you zoom in.

Attached photos:

Hi Garfield,

Good to see you getting photos from the Southside at EGCC. Looking at the photos you posted above. I unfortunately would have to agree with the screener here. (Sorry mate) They do look too soft. The main object isn't sharp I'm afraid. Looking at the conditions it seems they were taken in poor light. You have to make sure you have the correct settings dialed in to the camera in these types of conditions.

Take a close look at the Easyjet photo, the wing and engine area is very soft almost blurred. If there is one tip I give to people its always "quality over quantity". Only ever show your absolute best work. I get a few shots that are soft at times as we all do. It just happens sometimes due to various reasons.

Hi Ian,

Good to hear from you. The conditions were bright but the sun had deserted me. I had to accept ISO 400 again and I think this could be a hindrance. By using some noise reduction the image always softens a little. As far as Im concerned the High Pass Filter introduces a noticeable amount of scratchy grain into the fuselage. And I dont like it.

But having said all this,as photographers are we to accept that we should only be submitting photos taken in bright sunlight with the ISO rock bottom and fuselage details shimmering? Today`s a nice day but at times a touch overcast. But with the current influx of "Not sharp" rejections Im somewhat put off the 60 mile round trip drive to the fields of Cheshire!

I did notice what you mentioned about the Easyjet. Is it not possible that of the two areas you may get movement on take off it`s the wing and the engine? The wings flex appreciably,one thing Ive noticed as they scream by me at 160mph on 05L. There`s no blur on the fusealge even if it has earned the unsharp tag.

As I said earlier,Im certainly not a moaner who`s making a fuss. I just find it odd that some are rejected for unsharp and some are accepted,when all photos are taken within the same hour and processed in the same way.

I refuse to believe Ive got a duff lens,as I said it`s notched up some remarkable aircraft shots which have all been published.

Looks like for posting on here I`d better pray for cloudless Summer skies to allow rapid shutters and low ISOs.

Incidentally,you have one of the sharpest lenses Ive ever seen shots from!

Garfield

Garfield, back the exposure down a little the reds have been clipped by the over sharpening and the Greens are clipped at the shadow end on the Jet2 picture. Good exposure = good contrast = good sharpening.

The sharpening is poor on the Thomas Cook, I'd give it a bit more contrast, which may help with the sharpening but a close look on the original may show this one to be slightly blurred.

The easyJet has clipped black shadow tones and is slightly under exposed, I think this one may be suffering from a depth of field issue the winglet and engine being out of the focal plane.

Hi Garfield, I have to agree with Ian regarding your images, sorry.

I too use the 40D and 100/400 set up at the EGCC Southside, I'm no expert but instead of using high F numbers like F14-16 and increased ISO's of 400-500 why not try F8 and keep the ISO down to 100 in sunny conditions? F8 is considered the sweet spot for the 100/400. Look to get exposure times of around 640-1000, that should give you better results in camera.

Hope I'm not asking you to suck eggs, just trying to help.

Good luck...

Hello Wallace,

Many thanks for that. What exactly do you mean when you say the reds and greens are 'clipped' and clipped back shadow tones?

One of the reasons Ive bumped the exposure up a little is because Im trying to avoid another of the issues which is "Underxposed, too dark".

At times it can be a bit of a juggling game to get photos accepted.

Thanks

Garfield

Thanks Ian,

Im grateful for all input so there's no need to apologise for agreeing with someone else. After all, Im in the forum to get advice and improve.

I will always take advice and work hard at it.

From memory the images were F11 @ 1/800th.

Maybe I'll bump into you there someday :-)

Garfield, this may sound strange but just as you can have clipped whites you can also have clipped blacks. If you look at the histogram you will see a small graph line against the right hand side, this is the clipped reds, which are over exposed, they can not have a value any higher than 255. If you look at the left hand side, you will see a small line, this is clipped blues, which are under exposed and can not have a value any lower than 0.

Think on it like this, and equal amount of red, green and blue at just say 240 will give a shade of white, and an equal amount of RGB at say 20 will give a shade of black, so having unequal values as clipped tones means you have a slight colour cast and it is possibly over and or under exposed.

From memory, the sharpening routine boosted the boundary between the reds and the whites, clipping the red tones and losing any information and creating a halo. Clipped shadow tones means your shadow detail could be better and that particular tone can be better.

Colour theory is a lot to take in at times, shooting in RAW definitely gives you the edge when it comes to correcting exposure.

It is possibly that the upper tones are improperly compressed, creating banding and or colour noise, although this would take some experimentation to prove. Every little bit helps but getting good exposure is key to getting good sharpening.

No need to get down to f/11 for aviation photography in most common cases. Once you go over f/8, the image may start showing a decrease in quality. There's no exact rules, as it depends on camera and lens. Some cameras start showing a decrease in image quality due to diffraction on apertures as open as f/5.6.

I also suggest you research for technical reviews of your lens to understand their sharpness behavior. I did that with my main lens and once I knew how it behaves and limitations, I could set one of my camera's custom settings (C1, C2, etc, in Canon cameras) to exactly suit my needs and how do I want that lens to behave, keeping maximum sharpness up to a certain condition, where I usually change to Manual mode.

The softness may also be the result of a lack of autofocus micro-adjustment. Lens and cameras usually have very small differences between copies and that usually means that a small correction is needed to make the lens focus exactly where it should.

Second attempt and second fail trying to upload the picture I was talking about in my previous comment. Not rejected yet but I'm sure it will be.

This time the picture is less precessed than before, but still the degradation after upload is massive, 400 to 195 kb and digital noise everywhere. This is embarrasing...

You can see the effect of the uploading process in the attached image. The original one is not like this at all.

Attached photos:

My picture went through the secreening. Am I surprised? yes. Should I be happy? maybe. Am I happy? definetly not, because this picture http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/403749/ec-jpu-iberia-airbus-a340-600/ is not the exact same picture I wanted to upload.

I think that everybody, when we are processing a picture, take some steps to have the final photo we want. No more processing, no less processing, we like THAT picture. An this is the main point, why can't we upload the picture we want and have to watch a modified (and worse) verson of our pictures??? Is it so difficult letting us to upload the picture we want only modified with the watermark???

PS: the version 2.0 was described as "Digital noise is visible. JPG compression is visible." by the first screener and as "Borderline" by the second one (sorry, the third, the second one vanished), but ironically is one of the most liked pictures in the last 24h...

I still have no issues at all.

I do not complain normally because I see myself as someone who has still to learn a lot, but I must admit that I have a rejection now which less sharp then the one I uploaded and even an acceptation which is less sharp then the one I uploaded.

This problem keeps getting discussed and all people connected to A-P come up with is a list of alternative ideas on what to do without actually dealing with the real problem

Could this mean my images may have been sharp before I posted them on here??? :-)

Hi Garfield,

The answer is no. Check for example the Most liked photos and ask yourself if the photos you see are soft or low quality.

The issue is being solved and the upload code will be updated. Thanks to Ian who sent us the comparison photos.

It was only a joke alas.....

Well we will see. My next attempt will be with in bright sunlight and a 7.1 aperture, which is what the previous owner of the lens said was his preferred choice for sharpness with this particular Canon 100/400L.

If Im getting acceptances with a Canon 28/135 and a Sigma 10/20 I should be getting them with a Canon 100-400L series lens

What i cant understand is that if half the grunge photos which arent sharp are getting accepted but normal photos seem to be rejected.

Martin, great to hear things are progressing with the upload code. I am looking forward to uploading lots of new photos as soon as its up and running. I am really pleased this is being addressed.

4 out of 5 of my pictures are rejected due to "jpg compression", "digital noise", or whatever, which definitely caused by the compression during upload. I tried to explain this to the screener guys, even checked the size of the original and the uploaded pictures (barely more than half!), linked the original ones, and this topic to convince them - but looks like they doesn't want to realise the problem.

I don't want to be rude, but i think better to share my pictures somewhere else. Even JP, where quality standards are known to be quite high are accepts much more of my work.

Cheers: A

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/410106/hl8211-korean-air-airbus-a330-200/

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/photo/410103/ph-mcp-martinair-cargo-mcdonnell-douglas-md-11f/

Hello experts,

above I had today two accepted photos. I'am happy for the acceptation of course but I 'am not happy about the sharpness.

Now I tried the following.

I downloaded them from A-P on my PC and guess what.... they are sharp again.

Did anyone of you ever tried this and is there an explanation for it?

Gerard

You should maybe also have a look at this thread with regards to color profiles like Martin outlined.

Http://www.airplane-pictures.net/forum/1311/photo-s-turn-out-darker-after-upload/

Thank you Andre, my workflow is as follows.

I edit in Lightroom, export in jpg to a map, go from the map to PSE, resize the photo for A-P and then "export for web" and upload it to A-P, I only use sRGB colorprofiles.

Do you think there is anything to gain here?

Gerard, I will send you a link to a workflow tutorial video I made for someone else who's trying to get into a more consistent editing workflow. I'd be willing to share it if you want to see it. I'm a creature of habit.

I'am looking forward to it Andre!

Up to a few days ago I had no problems with the quality. But how about now:

http://www.airplane-pictures.net/images/uploaded-images/2014-6/5/412336.jpg

Just take a look at the titles of World of TUI. I can't be the problem about Saving to Web.

Daan, as you probably did read I also have problems with loosing quality after upload.

It looked stupid when I said that when I download my photo from A-P on my PC it looks sharp again.

Now I downloaded your ARKE-photo and when my brains don't cheat me it looks sharper then on A-P!

Can you try it too and inform us about what your eyes see?

Regards, Gerard

Unfortunatly ap.net still has problem :( Just compare file after and before upload...more than 30% of the file had lost after(or during) uplaod.I use sRGB color profile.

I don't really become sad when screeners decide not to publish my photos,I try to learn from my rejected photos;But JPG compression teaches nothing :/

Anyway,is there any solution for this problem?

After upload:

Both original uploaded photo and final result of uploading are attached.

Rgrds.

Attached photos:

maqui it is not necessary to post screeshots of screening decisions.

It's funny how color is lost during the upload, and then we get photos rejected for contrast being too low or washed out colors.. (even when saving for web as advised)

Original

https://www.flickr.com/photos/98391650@N02/14167296999/

I really hope Martin is working on this!

Attached photos:

Kamil, I am working on it, please could you send me the photo?

Regarding the colors, are you sure you're using sRGB color space?

Martin, I sent you an email to address below.

Lvcivs, Yes, I am sure about sRGB.

well I do not know what´s going on with what i thought to be a promising web site, yes there are top good shots, but I have the same problems about rejections.....of course I am very less experienced about editing, but I am also confused, I ve seen that many fellas here have the same problems.

I am thinking twice before up-loading again......

my best to you

rurik