Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="WhiteLight" data-source="post: 128511" data-attributes="member: 9556">Here are some comparison pics to show that images uploaded are for sure facing a quality loss along with size reduction.This is the image i posted in my daily thread a couple of days back:(Linking here from gallery)[ATTACH=full]30582[/ATTACH]And here is the image which was originally uploaded:<a href="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7383/dscwlp18.jpg" target="_blank">CLICK HERE FOR PIC ON IMAGESHACK</a><a href="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7383/dscwlp18.jpg" target="_blank"></a>Details of the Image:Original image size - 1.89MBUploaded size (can be verified in my gallery as well) - 75.8KBThats a whopping difference &amp; i think 70kb is too low for an image to maintain its quality.250-400KB seems about right for a good compromise between size &amp; quality.However when the upload limit is set to 2MB, i do not understand why it is being further compressed Am i the only one facing this issue??</blockquote>

[QUOTE="WhiteLight, post: 128511, member: 9556"] Here are some comparison pics to show that images uploaded are for sure facing a quality loss along with size reduction. This is the image i posted in my daily thread a couple of days back: (Linking here from gallery) [ATTACH type="full" width="30%"]30582._xfImport[/ATTACH] And here is the image which was originally uploaded: [URL="http://img339.imageshack.us/img339/7383/dscwlp18.jpg"][COLOR=#ff0000][B]CLICK HERE FOR PIC ON IMAGESHACK[/B][/COLOR] [/URL] Details of the Image: Original image size - 1.89MB Uploaded size (can be verified in my gallery as well) - 75.8KB Thats a whopping difference & i think 70kb is too low for an image to maintain its quality. 250-400KB seems about right for a good compromise between size & quality. However when the upload limit is set to 2MB, i do not understand why it is being further compressed Am i the only one facing this issue?? [/QUOTE]

Verification