Can I see the picture before you resized it?
Also, are you resizing the photos BEFORE or AFTER you add the captions text or whatever art you're doing with them?
I highly recommend adding caption text and such in a larger image, and then resizing that for the web.
I found this page...
It addresses the things we're talking about.
http://www.tested.com/tech/photogra...gs-and-gifs-six-image-hosting-sites-compared/
Bottom Line
If you're currently using Photobucket, Imageshack, or Imgur, stop. Use Minus. The service easily offers the best online interface and the least restrictive image constraints.
The thing is, I'm looking at your image sizes and it doesn't look like they're big enough for any service to be automatically compressing them.
However, they are larger file size than mine ever are...
It's because yours are in PNG format, and perhaps THAT is what Imageshack is doing something dodgy with...
I'm not 100% sure but I think you're going to get a smaller file size with JPG.
Also, of course, the chance of more loss.
But it could be better to take the loss on your end, than to take the loss on Imageshack's end...
I use JPG for my photomodes, resized at highest quality, and as you can see they don't have unforgivable quality loss.
This one I resized with Photoshop on imac recently:
This one I resized with Photoshop on PC maybe a year ago:
This one I resized with Zenphoto (on my web site) on the web yesterday:
This one I resized with Zenphoto just now- but with it set to 680px wide:
The GTP forum will resize any photo in the forum that's larger than 700px wide I think. So if you're posting photos here, there's no reason to go larger than that. (EDIT: I do mine at 800px now but that's because the script I have set up to batch does my regular photos at 800px width, and I'm too lazy to make a different script for my gt5 photomodes.
)
Now... I'm looking at your photos, if you right-click on a photo and choose "view image info", you can see the dimensions & file sizes.
Your examples are a lot bigger than mine. But are they really any better?
So try this:
Adding captions
at full size.
Resizing to 680px wide, and saving
as a JPG file.
Then upload it to imageshack.
See if it's better.
If it's not, we'll burn that bridge when we come to it. ^^... er...
EDIT:
(I advise using like the GIMP over the MSPAint (of your versions). Your GIMP version looks somehow fresher, though I really couldn't put my finger on what I like better about it. The MSPaint version is actually a larger file size though. So it could be some setting that makes the difference. Perhaps there's a tad better brightness in one than the other I don't know. Though inspecting the left car - the MSPaint might actually be sharper than the GIMP version.)
Dont listen to me on that and go with what you like.
Disclosure: I've worked doing professional digital photography, and I exclusively prefer CANON digital cameras. Many would not agree with my reasons. Fact is, you can often get sharper images with a Sony digital camera of the same camera type/grade. (And I wouldn't necessarily recommend Sony digital cameras as a general rule!)
The reason I prefer Canon over any number of others, is that I think the colours are more true & nuanced. And I figure if there's any lack of sharpness, that's easily fixed in post-production, whereas messing about with colour correction is more work in post-production.
(again, lazy
)
This all has to do a lot with TASTE and personal preference.
After all, just look at the photography fad of using HDR toning to ridiculous degrees.
Some people think it's an abomination. Some think it's wonderful.
I think anything that's overused -too much on one photo, or too often in too many photos... gets to be silly.
Yet there are TONS of serious die-hard photography albums online which have used it generously!!!
It's been a hugely popular trend for awhile now.
So clearly, with all art... beauty is in the eye of the beholder!!
