anlan, Ipernity is pushing the sharpening WAY too high.

We sharpen a little bit (we've refined this last night), but I actually prefer the Zooomr one -- We want to stay more true to how the photographer took the photo, instead of messing with the image data.

kristopher

If you compare a large version of both the images:

http://static.zooomr.com/images/4635047_90a7477bf1_b.jpg
and
http://www.ipernity.com/doc/44516/1759790/sizes/b

You can see considerably more noise on the Ipernity one.

I don't really see noise, but if Zooomr doesn't do sharpening anymore, it's OK.

Ew, The large ipernity photo is awful! (in image quality terms, not photography judgement!!!) - I can only be thankful zooomr photos don't look like that! An interesting riddle, thanks for bringing it up!

Zooomr did sharpen much more than ipernity in the past. I just noticed the difference and asked.

I do have to say that I'd prefer Zooomr's large photos to those of ipernity and they are definitely closer to the original, not sure about the small ones.

Does every photo storage site postprocess in this way ? How about flickr ?
I agree with anlan. It is important for most photographers to be close to the original. I think no postprocessing would be the best because it should be in photographer's hands and done by photographer before uploading.
If postprocessing is done too much by the sharing site, the site can not be valid for some kind of backup storage anyway.
Curious topic.

There is a limit - presumably the "original" is original, I'm only even slightly concerned until that's not true!. Zooomr as backup doesn't work with HD prices so low!

The fact remains though, the images are resized... So you're going to resize a 2000*2000 pixel image to 500 * 500, and keep the "sharpness" the same.... How? and what about the noise too... These things are inherent properties of the pixel distribution, and we know we have to change that to resize! So, do we take every 4th pixel, :(. what about averaging every 4*4 into each "mega-pixel" :/ - Confusing! And that was easy, what about odd numbers, non-integer multiples, rotations, further compression.... it's a mind field! Then there's the graphics rendering on the display, the display itself... are changes going to be magnified or hidden?
I'll cut to the chase... You can't ask for an image with 187,500 pixels (medium) to look the same as a 10,077,696 origional - The interesting question is, what can you expect? what changes are unavoidable (not all of them!)? What's the best those 187.5k pixels can do for us, and how do we go about getting it - I've given up thinking about that... looking round Zooomr is much more rewarding! Now I just have to hope it becomes cool to be nerdy - :-)

I wrote little a bit. Sorry if it made you confused.

First of all, I am not saying the smaller thumbnails but the very uploaded files/photos. I said them "original". So sharpening for smaller sizes is reasonable and I have nothing to say about it as long as it is moderate.

Second, I know the person who uses flickr as some kind of buckup. Though he has local storages for backup, I heard he has the third backups in his local, flickr is kind of backup for buckup for him. Actually I have not been using zooomr as any backup right now but if I lose all files stored in my local storage, all I have are the files stored at zooomr at that time and I will try to download these files (offcourse the largest ones). So I'm curious about treatment for original uplaoded files.

Ok, I should offer my apologies to Kris & Zooomr, I shouldn't have said 'poor' image quality, simply because Zooomr is closer to the original than ipernity. What I realized was just a change. And quite correctly you cannot compare a small size image to the original on your computer.

So, I'm sorry and glad that zooomr changed it's policy of postprocessing.

Just as a comparison an older photo:

Zooomr


ipernity


In large size one can see the difference fairly well. Ipernity is closer to the original than the old Zooomr, but clearly behind the new Zooomr.

I just uploaded the pic again and you can see quite a difference between the old and new way to postprocess.

Zooomr old


Zooomr new


The new one is much closer to the original.

Thanks anlan!
It is good to see the difference between them and it's definitely clear. I'd like you to leave these images for the fact.

I have a question.
Are these larger images your originals ?
In my question, "originals" mean the uploaded files themselves, not smaller ones created automatically.

Hey, I'm sure no appology was needed. Interesting comparison above! thanks.

Yanz, not the original but the large file, both sites Zooomr and ipernity don't alter the original, I checked that.

Thanks anlan.
I just wanted to confirm it. Now I could understand well.