Compression Artifacts

[Brad]

During the initial reduction phase penalties for compression artifacts will now be increased 2-4 times. This makes it unlikely that images with obvious visual artifacts will make it to the public vote. These artifacts are often created by lowering the compression/file quality when saving the file. Members that save their files after a basic crop or resize need to be careful.


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=jpeg+compression+artifacts

Our February 2007 contest winner submitted by Will Hayward. This is a nice simple photo of a baby panther chameleon.

The image above was excessively compressed by myself in order to show an example of compression artifacts. These are most easily visible by focusing on the borders of objects.

 

[CHAMpion]

I must not have the trained eye because i don't see any difference....maybe i should put on my glasses

 

[ciafardo 4]

i know nothing about photography didn't know that it went hand in hand with chamin till i found this forum i like that picture but they look the same to me???????????

 

[zelink14]

Looks like the compressed one is slightly desaturated... VERY slightly.

Hurray for being an art student.

 

[Rocky]

well if you look close enough you can basically tell the blockyness of the picture.

The best way to tell is by looking at the blur in the back ground. There you can tell the difference.

What is a little harder to notice is that if you look at the second photo the stripes on the white line dont seem to pop out as much.

He's basically saying make sure you dont compress it when you resave it so it keeps the original look, it may not be extremely noticable in that image, but in some it is. They basically dont want photo's that will look really blocky when they could be resized for calendars etc.

 

[dodolah]

the edges are pixelated while the uncompressed one are sharp.

 

[ponders]

Brad,
How would you avoid this from happening when you have to compress them so they will fit? I noticed they are in my picture when I had to shrink it down from 10 MP to fit in the photo contest.
Thanks!

 

[BocaJan]

I have a pretty simple camera. How can us folks without expensive cameras even have a chance at getting our photo high up enough on the list to get voted on?

 

[ponders]

I used my little point and shoot Casio Exilim and got in the photo contest several times. I don't think it's the camera you use it's the way you use it

 

[Mesnik]

I got cut from a contest because of incorrect sizing!? ... very frustrating!

Why doesn't someone post what should be the commom post-processing steps, and a set final size and resolution?

I saw on another thread (I think it was the photo contest for Feb), a discussion about color saturation and sharpness... these topics are so broad that it should not make a difference when choosing a winning picture.

To me, since this forum is not about photography, all it should matter is composition, that's it!

So blocky or not, over or under saturated, over exposed, etc... shoul not matter... now I am rambling...

edit: and if a photo is requested to be used somewhere nice, a better quality one can be emailed. Okay, I'm done.

 

[SoCaliSon]

Yeah... I have to say... Is this really necessary? I went to school for photo journalism for 2 years... and that even confused me a bit. Is this a Professional Photo Competition? I understand certain rules and regulations are necessary to keep things fair and in check... But it seems like this photo contest is being made way more complicated than it needs to be; just my thoughts. I have sort of felt this way from the beginning though. I like when contests like this on Internet forums just do an open poll to see which photo catches the communities eye the most out of all of the submitted images that didn't horribly break a very simple criteria. This is just a Chameleon Site. But ... this is Brads Chameleon site to do what he will... and he does a great Job. In this case... I think you are just creating more work, and one more thing for people to wonder about when there pic didn't even make voting.

 

[Brad]

I have a pretty simple camera. How can us folks without expensive cameras even have a chance at getting our photo high up enough on the list to get voted on?

I'm not an expert on these things, but if you are referring to compression artifacts I believe this is more of a software problem created after the photo has been taken.

Brad,
How would you avoid this from happening when you have to compress them so they will fit? I noticed they are in my picture when I had to shrink it down from 10 MP to fit in the photo contest.
Thanks!

The maximum file size allowed for entries may need to be increased. I believe it is currently set at 2MB.

I got cut from a contest because of incorrect sizing!? ... very frustrating! ...

I'm not familiar with your photo, but yes there are basic requirements. Photos need to be a certain size. I think you will find most photo contests have size requirements.

 

[Minihuey]

yes. You are able to see visible pixels in the compressed one! YAY for being a film student!

 

[warpdrive]

I'm not an expert on these things, but if you are referring to compression artifacts I believe this is more of a software problem created after the photo has been taken.

WRONG !!!!!!

while I agree that poorly edited photos will have problems like the above, it starts with the camera bro.

all photos taken with a digital camera and saved on the disk as a .JPEG are comperessed and edited with the camera's built in software.

just look at the file size for almost any photo on your camera...a digital camera will never save a .jpeg as uncompressed or in full detail.
.jpeg, by default means compresed image.

only when it is saved in RAW format will the photo not be compressed in any way....although you will need to add some editing because in RAW format, the camera doesn't use any filters to the image.
oh, wait, we can't edit the photo, as this will make the chameleon "fake".

in fact all .jpegs lack detail and are fake in every way...color, saturation, vibracy, contrast, white balance...all will be wrong or fake depending on the camera's built in software.

only though editing of RAW images will we ever get "real chameleons in real environments".
untill then, all the photos are fake and clearly not "real chameleons..."

no offence Brad, but the rules of the photo contests are getting a bit retarded.
I realy feel that you need to sit down with someone who understands just what digital photograhy is and how it works, then make a new set of "rules" that everyone here can enjoy.

no offence, but I'm getting sick of looking at all the "FAKE" chameleons in the photo contests...and I'm talking about the ones that are not edited, just cropped and/or resized.

ART is ART. REALISUM is REALISUM.
you can't have one or the other without digital editing.
digital photography starts with the camera, but it ends with the human mind editing what the camera CAN'T do.

compressed atifacts, my lord. what's next?

with all due respect,
Harry

 

[Heika]

no offence, but I'm getting sick of looking at all the "FAKE" chameleons in the photo contests...and I'm talking about the ones that are not edited, just cropped and/or resized.

Easy solution.. don't look at the "fake" chameleon pictures, then.

The contest is competitive. End of story there. Folks snapping pictures from their cell phone aren't going to have a great shot at winning. I have placed in the top three a few times, and I don't own a great camera. Just a decent point and shoot.

Considering the amount of submissions every month, it doesn't seem that these rules are affecting folks. Since it is Brad's forum, Brad's photo contest, and Brad who pays for the gift cards, my vote is we should just follow Brad's rules.

 

[Brad]

WRONG !!!!!!

while I agree that poorly edited photos will have problems like the above, it starts with the camera bro.

all photos taken with a digital camera and saved on the disk as a .JPEG are comperessed and edited with the camera's built in software.

just look at the file size for almost any photo on your camera...a digital camera will never save a .jpeg as uncompressed or in full detail.
.jpeg, by default means compresed image.

I know perfectly well how jpeg images and digital photography work. The artifacts I am referring to are usually caused by editing an existing file. Some people were using inferior software or not realizing the high compression settings they were using. The purpose of this thread was to try to make members more aware of the problem so that they would have a better chance in the contest. Since originally posting this thread the problem has been significantly reduced.

no offence Brad, but the rules of the photo contests are getting a bit retarded.
I realy feel that you need to sit down with someone who understands just what digital photograhy is and how it works, then make a new set of "rules" that everyone here can enjoy.

You seem to think the rules are progressively getting worse. The contest rules have not changed significantly in years. As I always try to mention, I am open to suggestions.

no offence, but I'm getting sick of looking at all the "FAKE" chameleons in the photo contests...and I'm talking about the ones that are not edited, just cropped and/or resized.

This is the first I have heard about it from you.

compressed atifacts, my lord. what's next?

Are you suggesting that compression artifacts be ignored? If the quality of the photo is to be ignored, how do we decide who has the best photo?

 

[Fidget321]

So how does one correctly re size/crop an image?

 

[warpdrive]

I know perfectly well how jpeg images and digital photography work. The artifacts I am referring to are usually caused by editing an existing file. Some people were using inferior software or not realizing the high compression settings they were using. The purpose of this thread was to try to make members more aware of the problem so that they would have a better chance in the contest. Since originally posting this thread the problem has been significantly reduced.

yet a person with a 12MP camera will have no choice whats so ever but compress the image far more then someone with just a 6MP camera in order to fit it in the max size alowed by the rules.
with more pocket cameras as well as SLRs going far higher in resolution or MP size...this problem is only going to get worse in time.

You seem to think the rules are progressively getting worse. The contest rules have not changed significantly in years. As I always try to mention, I am open to suggestions.

personaly, no I don't think the rules are getting worse, just more and more unflexable.

Brad, you have to work within limits...I totaly understand.

but understand that the members here also have limits as to what they can and can't do in order to conform to the rules.
my point is maybe it's time to be a little flexable in what members are aloud to do, and what they can't.

fitting a full size image from a 20MP camera into a 2mb size image without artifacts is alot harder to do then from a camera with only a 6MP censor.

Are you suggesting that compression artifacts be ignored? If the quality of the photo is to be ignored, how do we decide who has the best photo?

not at all.
infact I think it's a good idea to judge all photos based on quality to a degree.
but understand that the rules can at times "tie the hands" of the photographer as to what he/she is able to submit.

let's take a look at rule #4, sec G "No image modifications besides cropping and resizing are allowed."

while I fully understand that many people here would clearly try to take advantage and totaly make their chameleon look far beyond what it normaly looks like...the fact remains that without a resonable amount of editing in order to make corections, not one photograph in the entrys are realistic.
(all of them have flaws or shortcommings in white balance, saturation, and other things...yet we can't edit them to make them better or more realistic.)
yet you do alow for image resizing...and this is something again that higher MP cameras will have a far harder time dealing with today and in the future.

yet my real point is...
if compression artifacts are so important, why isn't white balance?
why isn't color representation, such as tint and huges?
is noise a factor? if so, why can't we edit it out?
if the vibracy of the sky in an outdoor image is out of balance and looks "muddy" due to no falt of the photographer (but of the software built into the camera), why can't we edit it? isn't it just as important? (and why would you want us to post a photo with a fake looking sky?)
why, why, why, should we not be alowed to fix or get more detail in shadows and highlights due to poor dynamic range of our camera's pre-prossesing and censor.
...I could go on forever.

above all, why is compression artifacts far more important then the rest of the quality issues?

let's also remember that ALL .jpegs have been edited by the camera before it was recorded on the disk. so if pre prossesing is alowed, then why isn't "resonable" post prossesing alowed?

----------------------------

I also want to say to you Brad and others like Heika, that no matter what your thoughts are on the subject, I have no problem abiding by the rules that you make on such a contest.
I submit my photos for fun and to suport this great forum. I didn't even vote for my picture, and wont in the future.

I'm not here to argue with you or anyone else on this subject matter.
it's just that you can't have realism without digital editing, and it's my understanding that realism is what you are looking for.
maybe I'm wrong.

(side note: my simple compact point and shoot has far more features then most SLRs. so I'm in no way arguing the fact that my camera is poor in any way, and thus I can't shoot quality photos.
it's just that without "resonable" editing, NO CAMERA built today will save a .jpeg to disk with perfect pre-prossesing.
in fact, all photos, no matter how much you adjust the settings on your best camera, will never be perfect, or represent the subject in a realistic way.

it's not a matter that the camera in question has limits that can't be helped, it's that digital photography itself has limits that can't be avoided. thus the need to correct the filtered image from the camera is manditory in order for the final image to be close to perfect or realistic.)

one last thing before I go...
my thoughts on this subject are to be taken lightly.
I know full well that I don't always show enough politeness in the way I post.
please forgive me if at times I am posting something that seems harsh.
I mean no disrespect to you Brad, or anyone else.
one day I will learn how to post without seeming so rude at times.

with great respect,
Harry