xbarcelo wrote:
I've noticed in the last few weeks that the sharpening is worse than it used to be, even for large-original sizes. That's why I'm using my 500px account.
If i upload an image to flickr and then download it from flickr, it has the same file-size. Or are you talking about uploading a large image which is now resized worse than before?
To me, the original size is a little oversharpened, but less than the reduced size. 500px seems a little soft… So, I don't know what happens or how, but it feels different.
This seems to come up occasionally. I don't know anything about 500px, but with Flickr, unless you're looking at the "original" there is some sharpening applied.
If you wanted untouched 1024 wide images then you'd have to upload them at 1024 wide and use the link for the original when you post them in forums, etc... You must have a Pro Account to access your original files.
I've found that exporting around 1600 wide produces pretty good results with Flickr when I want to show my images at 1024.
Is there any definitive knowledge on this? I typically upload to Flickr at 2048 x 1363 and haven't noticed anything awry at 1024 or 1600. That 500px looks soft above, but the Flickr versions above look good & sharp to me.
My theory is that even at 1024 pixels, I think what Flickr does is redo the jpeg compression. The before upload and after upload file size is definitely different. Maybe someone who is more tech savy can chime in.
alan_m wrote:
Is there any definitive knowledge on this? I typically upload to Flickr at 2048 x 1363 and haven't noticed anything awry at 1024 or 1600. That 500px looks soft above, but the Flickr versions above look good & sharp to me.
Alan
Interesting… I guess that I'm a little scared of oversharpening…
It's been discussed as a tangent in a few threads here. It seems that some people don't think Flickr does anything, some think it does, some aren't bothered by it, and some are. I don't think anyone knows exactly what Flickr does other than maybe devs inside of Flickr.
I say it definitely does *something* to all images no matter what size they're uploaded at (except originals). By originals I mean what Flickr calls "originals" which you only have access to with a paid ("Pro") account.
Someone on the Flickr forum once told me that it applies a basic sharpening algorithm on images and the closer the uploaded image is to the various sizes Flickr provides, the more dramatic (usually in a bad way) the result is. I don't know if that's always the case but when I was uploading at 1024 or 1280 wide the images didn't look good. At 1600 wide I'm fine with it.
I like the shot, coloured, but you might want to run some noise reduction on it. The color noise is particularly distracting. Once it's cleaned up, it'll be a stunner.
So I was listening to this Paul Simon song, "American Tune" on the flight home and staring out the window. When he got to this...
"And I dreamed I was dying
I dreamed that my soul rose unexpectedly
And looking back down at me smiled reassuringly
And I dreamed I was flying"
...that's when I saw this out the window with the Summarit 75.
Coloured - a couple of minor dust spots & sharpened chroma noise in that otherwise beautiful shot? (Sorry if I seem to be pointing out flaws a lot lately - it's certainly not related to my own skill levels. I'd hope that mine would be pointed out to me if I'd missed them!)
Thanks Jonrock - no, it's the FDn 1980's bayonet mount all-black version. My FD 35/2 (1970's, chrome nose, silvery breech-lock mount, glass contains radioactive elements, not the coatings) focus mechanism came loose, so I opened it up, not for the first time, but failed to get it back together again (yet!). I can't see a big difference between them; the olser one is fabled for sharpness, but if anything my FDn seems to be contrastier & as sharp (subjective impressions, no tests possible for now!).
Nothing exciting in this post, but I had to put up my first day's shots!! Finally got my NEX in the mail yesterday!
The 58/1.2, however, is a beast. Any suggestions for something more G 45-sized? It'd be to complement my G 45, so, something for portraits, close-ups--pretty much any non-landscape--and I'm not really that concerned about sharpness.
All with the G 45 (what a perfect lens for this system!)
I can't see a big difference between them; the olser one is fabled for sharpness, but if anything my FDn seems to be contrastier & as sharp (subjective impressions, no tests possible for now!). 
