Flickr logo. If you click it, you'll go home. Sign Up Explore. Upload Sign In. Share it here. Click here to get started and to read our Forum Guidelines. Latest: 17 months ago Current Discussion Why do people sometimes put "on" or "off" or both "on" and "off" in their Flickr display names? Latest: 29 hours ago More Search the Help Forum How do you resize photos for sharing blumacheese says: There used to be a place where you could resize photos when you wanted to share them.
Fry says: "There used to be a place where you could resize photos when you wanted to share them. Fry says: blumacheese "I am not sure where the desktop tool is.
Fry says: Sorry, I must be misunderstanding. Fry says: "I am trying to put an avatar on a website" Okay, that's something different altogether. Feed — Subscribe to help discussion threads. Latest: 9 hours ago. New Flickr Notifications Center and Settings available to all members. Latest: 2 months ago. Welcome to the Flickr Help Forum! Latest: 17 months ago. Not many. This is not good.
Originals can be viewed on the All Sizes page, but usually not the entire photo at once. The Searcher : The originals you upload however, are never altered or resized by Flickr in any way.
The originals also gets compressed, i just checked, a 7,5 Mb image is only 7,1 Mb when downloaded, it does not seem to matter for the image quality, but it looks like some compression is going on Spam from member vgnvcbvcb reported. Kiss goodbye to your account, you worthless scum.
J M Kervel : The originals also gets compressed, i just checked, a 7,5 Mb image is only 7,1 Mb when downloaded, it does not seem to matter for the image quality, but it looks like some compression is going on If the file size is different then it is obviously not your original. Be sure that you are looking at your original file , not just the Flickr-generated copy of the original size. J M Kervel : 7,5 Mb image is only 7,1 Mb when downloaded Flickr was trying to be too smart for their own good and save some money on storage in the process and started compressing originals using lossless compression search for "Lossless JPG Compression" without quotes.
Ha ha ha! Best typo I've seen all week! So we have to conclude that the original file is compressed.. Well, I've just tested this The image on desktop was I uploaded it and then downloaded it from flickr back to my desktop and it was still I checked a couple of others I uploaded last week and they were true to the original mb. Flickr logo. If you click it, you'll go home.
Sign Up Explore. We're at a poor transitioning period. It will get better but for now it sucks. Even on my work machine Mac Pro. Not sure about the monitors I see same effects. My older images look perfectly fine. It's just images uploaded after April 22 where I notice issues. Prior to April, I always thought that the Flickr generated images were pretty much perfect smaller copies of the original upload. Then in April I started noticing pixelization sp? Here is an easy test: www.
Actually, they are both identical in size, so the image doesn't even move, which makes it easier to see the difference. You can see compression artifacts and jagged pixels in the Flickr generated image, especially along the edges. It's not a huge difference, but it's there. The original is nothing great to begin with, just a crappy photo of Jupiter, but it's smoother than the sharpened Flickr image, and that's the way it was supposed to be.
I'll try and send some links later on today but I definitely note pixelation on many new uploads, as John Fraturra above has also noted. Im bumping this up. I'm afraid I can't use the flickr service if it degrades my images.
Is there a change in the works? I've just uploaded five image to Flickr. As noted above, images uploaded recently display poorly and exhibit pixelation, noise and noticeable loss of quality. Here is an example of an image taken by somebody else. Look at the pixels in the top left. My conclusion, as with others above, is that Flickr is compressing files on upload and in its display. Would be grateful if this is looked in to. As an additional issue, why are people favoriting these images I uploaded for this purpose - I set the upload date to January !!??
Why are they appearing to contacts? Sorry, I am having to make my recent uploads private - they are completely confusing my contacts despite me changing the upload dates to January Flickr makes compressed copies of your originals for display on various pages on the site.
The test of this is to download the original file from flickr and compare it to the file on your device. Newly uploaded images show on the Flickr home page.
Changing the date uploaded no longer stops that. ColleenM : I have had to change the files to private - I did not realise that contacts see them and I do not want this to happen. Of my five files uploaded: 1. Original, 9. Original, Orginal 3. Original 4. Orignal 1. This may or may not be related to the artefacts that many people are observing on recent uploads. From my standpoint, many photos I planned to share I have had to abort while I try and investigate a workaround. File size reporting is not always that precise or consistent, and those size differences you report would be well within the range of variance.
It's also important to use the same exact tools to view the files. For example one of my files is 4. I just downloaded four recent images and they report the precise size that the original on my computer has. That is different than the results you describe. So another thing I would check is your process for upload. If you use an image tool to upload to Flickr lightroom, iPhoto, etc make sure it isn't doing some form of compression prior to uploading to Flickr.
I actually upload directly to Flickr from Dropbox so not sure why this discrepancy arises will have to investigate further I guess. Anyway, the original concern, raised by other members and one that I share, is the lower quality of image viewing since the end of April. That is, images uploaded recently are notably noisier, more pixelated or contain other artefacts when viewed through Flickr regardless of browser.
Any ideas why this should be the case? It might be the uploading process you're using. Can you try uploading your file directly from your computer to your Flickr account using the Flickr web uploader? I just compared one of the images from my hard drive against the original I downloaded and their content matches each other byte for byte literally - I used binary comparison.
So much speculation, and no one who responds has a clue whether anything is going on or not. This is NOT a subject where opinion counts. Either Flickr is affecting uploaded images, or it is not. Honestly, though i don't give a squirt about any photo uploaded in black and white, I admit that I cannot easily see any differences in those images referenced at the top of this thread.
Don't know how, don't know why In every case there is additional sharpening done between the PS photo and the final image on Flickr. I have to resort to uploading, evaluating, then going back to PS and working with 'blur' filter to offset whatever is happening during the upload. I AM using a very high-def large monitor They ARE different, and it is frustrating. In my example above, I just downloaded my original from Flickr, and it was an exact match to my uploaded file, both in file size, and in appearance.
My minor gripe is about the Flickr generated images, since they are the ones everybody sees. It's not a huge difference, but it seems the quality has been reduced. Vidterry : Are you saying that when you upload an image to Flickr and then download it again that it has been changed? You can see differences in how images are displayed just by using two different photo viewers on your computer to view a single file that is stored on your computer.
That one file will look different depending on what software you use to display it. That has nothing to do with whether or not Flickr alters your uploaded file. If you upload a file, and then download that 'original' again, it should look exactly the same as the one that is still sitting on your computer, as long as you view both files with the same software.
If, instead, you mean that when you download your original file from your computer account that it has been changed by Flickr, and viewing the download and the first file side-by-side in the same software shows differences, then you are indeed reporting something different from the other reports here.
Vidterry : I think you're conflating different things. For one, the issue for most of this thread isn't about the original files, it's about how Flickr is compressing the Flickr-generated files that are used for site display. For your example there may be two things going on. One, you may be looking at a Flickr-generated image and not your original when you're seeing the difference in sharpness you didn't specify.
Photoshop is an image viewing tool, and your web browser is ALSO an image viewing tool. It is very common to see differences between how images are displayed across different tools. For a true test of how your images display, you should upload an image to another site, Dropbox, Google, whatever, and then compare BOTH images within a browser. Similarly, download an image from Flickr and open it in Photoshop and compare it side by side with your original, again both within Photoshop.
Again, with images matching the precise file size and binary comparison, there can be no manipulation. There is so far no proof that Flickr is altering our original images in any way. And all proof offered so far, points to lack of manipulation. The Searcher : For a true test of how your images display, you should upload an image to another site, Dropbox, Google, whatever, and then compare BOTH images within a browser. Even better, would be to layer one on top of the other, and then turn the top layer on and off.
John Frattura : Oh, yeah! Click click click click back and forth. You could zoom in to any detail and toggle that way too. I did a comparison on an image I uploaded on May 31, The original, when downloaded, is identical to the photo I uploaded in every way— x and kb. The Flickr generated "Large" version, which is also x is filled will artifacting which is readily apparent when viewing under even a minimal amount of magnification and the file size is only kb vs kb.
A substantial compression! This artifacting grows even greater when viewing the Flickr generated image that displays on the photo page.
This image appears to be the largest of the "Medium" generated images. Furthermore, when hovering the mouse pointer over the image on the photopage and clicking on it to view the magnified version, the resulting magnified image is the Flickr generated "Large" version, which I've already seen as having substantial artifacting present.
Now whether this artifacting is solely the result of image-degrading compression for the sake of saving space or a combination of the compression coupled with an overzealous attempt of Flickr to add some post-upload sharpening to the images is debatable, but there is most certainly a degradation in quality occurring due to artifacting of our images as they display on the viewing pages.
I feel this has been established on several accounts already. At this point, it seems, if anyone still wishes to deny this degradation of the Flickr generated images being viewed on the photo pages not the original files, mind you, as their integrity remains , then they are either being unwittingly obtuse, they're wanting to argue for argument's sake or are simply loving the Emperor's new clothes, because they're ass-kissers.
I enlarged my original, and the exact same size image that Flickr generated. This Flickr generated image is the same size as my original, so the only change was Flickr's sharpening and compression. Buddha's Ghost : if anyone still wishes to deny this degradation of the Flickr generated images being viewed on the photo pages not the original files, mind you, as their integrity remains No one in this thread has argued anything different.
There are threads going back years about the sharpening that Flickr applies to the Flickr-generated sizes. I don't think anyone who is trying to explain what is happening has said anything different. But so far, there still seems to be some confusion on the OP's part about exactly what has changed. The thing that everyone has agreed to is that the original file that you upload to Flickr is not changed by a single pixel. It is the Flickr generated sizes that show changes.
Is everyone's original in these comparisons similar in size to Flickr's px size? I'm curious if the compression may be worse when working from smaller images, as opposed to high resolution sizes. I recall that was an issue with the sharpening, it worked best was more subtle when starting with px or higher images. The Searcher : Is everyone's original in these comparisons similar in size to Flickr's px size?
In this case my original was very small. Just under x Most of my images are usually closer to x The Searcher : I thought so too. So I uploaded all sizes, x uncompressed tiff, jpg, scaled jpgs. It's all the same for me. When I download a flickr image and compare with the original jpeg, those images are identical, Images that I post on Flickr do not show any artifacts.
I Which uploader are you using? I tried the TIFF option and made no difference. I usually use the old uploader but also tried the drag and drop option. The compression algorithm for viewing must be the same regardless of means and mode of upload, which I guess is not really surprising.
A few more tests in Lightroom suggests that Flick is sharpening and increasing contrast of images in addition to some sort of compression. Thus, I can reduce, but not eliminate, artefacts by reducing contrast and sharpening before export and upload. Would appreciate some input from technical staff at Flickr if possible as many members are noting these artefacts.
When you download that original again, has it been changed? We all know that Flickr uses an algorithm to compress and sharpen the smaller sizes. You seem to be the only person who is experiencing a change in the original file. See, for example, this thread from about over-sharpening www. The Searcher : Really I also thinking about it. ColleenM : Think I've found out why my downloaded original files looked smaller - I was checking the file properties differently in each case.
0コメント