How to get optimum picture quality of posted photos?

[TillaMurphs]

It can be frustrating to have a nice, high quality, photo that shows all important information for a benchmark only to have relevant details disappear after the upload to the log.

 

What are the optimum file size and dimensions to set the photo to before uploading? I have done some experimenting but I seem to end of with inconclusive results. I thought the maximum dimensions were 600 x 450 but I see some posted photos that are larger.

 

Could you help me/us with some suggestions?

 

Thanks,

 

The TillaMurphs

[+Black Dog Trackers]

I've just uploaded whatever I have and let the system change it how it wants to. I think Groundspeak has changed how they do that from time to time.

 

I suggest uploading a bunch of views for a mark at a bunch of different settings on your camera, don't pre-edit any of them, and document what happens. I'm sure we'd all be interested in such an experiment.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

It can be frustrating to have a nice, high quality, photo that shows all important information for a benchmark only to have relevant details disappear after the upload to the log.

 

What are the optimum file size and dimensions to set the photo to before uploading? I have done some experimenting but I seem to end of with inconclusive results. I thought the maximum dimensions were 600 x 450 but I see some posted photos that are larger.

 

Could you help me/us with some suggestions?

 

Thanks,

 

The TillaMurphs

 

I like using 800 X 600 pixels & 1000 X 750 pixels or something in that size range. The size that matters most is the maximum size of 125KB. I usually sized to about 120KB to insure that the site doesn't do any "extra" resizing. The program we use has a "Save for the web" that allows us to set the KB size to just under 125.

 

John

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

I use 1200x1600.

It get's resized anyway.

 

I also edit some of my images to a little smaller and try to make them clearer.

 

But then there are always those which just do not come out clear for some reason.

 

I think it is me and my limited knowledge of the process.

[+m&h]

A quick scan of your most recent four finds leads us to ask for better examples of unclear pictures. These are very good, we think. One thing we try to do that you don't is to position the disk in the lower center of the area shot. That is, near the bottom of the picture on the vertical center line. We use fewer red arrows that way. In one of your bridge abutment shots, an extra several inches of whiskbroom work would have made the disk stand out all by itself. But as we said, these look pretty good to us.

 

Cheers,

[+pgrig]

Most of mine requiring detail have the long dimension set at 600 px, or sometimes 630 if I push it. Above that, I believe resizing by GC.com sets in, and that can cost you quite a bit of sharpness, I believe I recall. Simple closeups of disks that are well-focused I can get away with at about 450 px on a side, if I recall correctly.

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

It can be frustrating to have a nice, high quality, photo that shows all important information for a benchmark only to have relevant details disappear after the upload to the log.

 

What are the optimum file size and dimensions to set the photo to before uploading? I have done some experimenting but I seem to end of with inconclusive results. I thought the maximum dimensions were 600 x 450 but I see some posted photos that are larger.

 

Could you help me/us with some suggestions?

 

Thanks,

 

The TillaMurphs

I never let the system resize my images. I use two sizes:

 

1) 600x600 pixels for pictures of disks. I start with the raw shot (currently 8 Mpix). First I rotate it so the disk is aligned exactly right (make the horizontal bar exactly horizontal). Then I crop it (square) so the disk takes about 90% of the frame. Then I resize it to 600 pix width. (the systems takes these as is). Then I fiddle with the contrast, color balance etc. NOTE: USE MACRO MODE FOR DISK SHOTS.

 

Here's one from yesterday (KU1632):

 

 

Notice (as in this case) the rotated image ocasionally leave a little dead space (upper left and lower right). This is usually not noticed. (did you notice?)

 

2) 960 x 720 - for all area views. I crop to get the optimal scene, resize to 960x720, enhance the color, contrast etc, and then when I save it I turn down the "jpeg quality" to get it under the system limit (which I think is actually 150k, not 125k). I seldom see a loss of visual quality by toning it down thus.

 

If I forget to turn down the "quality", and thus the file size is over the limit, the system will convert it to pip-squeak size. When I see this happen, I delete it from the log, fix my original, and upload it again.

 

Here's one of those from yesterday:

 

 

Yesterday was a rainy day so the lighting was not ideal, but I try to do the best with conditions as they are.

Edited April 12, 2009 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[+PFF]

My camera has a large memory card, so can I shoot everything at 3 megapixels without running out of space. Prior to uploading benchmark pictures, I use a photo editor to resize to 640x480. I save the result with the name of the station, followed by "disk", "Area", or 'Vicinity'.

 

The newly-sized photos upload quickly, with excellent clarity. And I still have the original large photo for other uses.

 

-Paul-

[+billwallace]

I follow a method similar to Papa-Bear...

 

Rotate, crop, resize/resample to smaller pixel dimensions, adjust contrast/colors and save with the jpeg quality set to limit the filesize. It's kinda tedious. Somewhere in the GC.com help there is a statement about 600 px max or 120/125k filesize max - or the site will resize it for you. I can't figure out from the statement whether you have to be under both limits or just one. I have tried 700 pixel widths with file sizes less than 120K and they seem to be fine. I use a freeware program that works great.

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

I follow a method similar to Papa-Bear...

 

Rotate, crop, resize/resample to smaller pixel dimensions, adjust contrast/colors and save with the jpeg quality set to limit the filesize. It's kinda tedious. Somewhere in the GC.com help there is a statement about 600 px max or 120/125k filesize max - or the site will resize it for you. I can't figure out from the statement whether you have to be under both limits or just one. I have tried 700 pixel widths with file sizes less than 120K and they seem to be fine. I use a freeware program that works great.

 

Just use file size as your guide. Here's an example of a big picture (1000 X 750 pixels), but the file size is 123K.

 

 

A view shot from the benchmark JACK in northern AZ.

 

John

[+GEO*Trailblazer 1]

Maybe that is my problem.

I will try smaller images and get it closer to the set pixel size for GC.

[+seventhings]

I use a Canon PowerShot A85, 4.0 megapixel. With a little trial and error, I found that setting the camera to "small photos" - "medium fine" quality yields photos of between 90k and 125k. They upload quickly and without distortion. On occasion, I've screwed up the settings and ended up with much larger photos - that is, from 400k tp 2.0 mb. When I upload these larger photos to Geocaching, the re-sizing function pixilates the daylights out of them (even to the point where the stamping on a disk is rendered unreadable).

 

Trial and error has also taught me that I get the best photos of disk from a distance of about two feet in "Macro" mode and with the 3x optical zoom lense zoomed about two-thirds of the way. Trial and error has also taught me that photos of disks are generally (four times out of five, more or less) better without using the flash (when the "Auto" mode of the camera senses a flash is needed). However, for that one time out of five, under low light conditions I will take a few photos with and a few without the flash just to be sure I get one decent photo.

 

I do not mess with the photos before I upload them. ("Yeah, we know!")

 

Will

[+PFF]

Seventhings wrote:

 

Trial and error has also taught me that I get the best photos of disk from a distance of about two feet in "Macro" mode and with the 3x optical zoom lense zoomed about two-thirds of the way.

 

Two feet sounds like a good compromise. I shoot the disk from a standing position by using the Zoom feature. This has worked well with two Sony disk cameras and a Minolta SLR film camera. These are medium priced cameras ($600 range) with excellent lenses. But in the Zoom mode, the camera must be held steady.

 

The "stand-and-zoom" technique is ideal in situations where one must lean over a bridge rail. Here's a sample from a recent team hunt. It was taken from several feet above the abutment (after the younger and more agile Kyle climbed down and dusted the disk with baby powder).

 

This is from a 3-megapixel photo which I changed to 640x480 prior to uploading. (GC.com did not resize it.)

-Paul-

 

EZ1920

Edited April 13, 2009 by PFF

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Trial and error has also taught me that I get the best photos of disk from a distance of about two feet in "Macro" mode and with the 3x optical zoom lens zoomed about two-thirds of the way.

My experience is a little different on this. I find using the zoom makes the camera much more sensitive to slight movements, vibrations, etc. So I set the zoom off and just move in close to the subject. using my display I move so the disk nearly fills the frame, often about 6" away. Then if you push the button half way and pause, it will focus first, then push the rest of the way to take the picture. Most cameras work this way.

 

I also have a Canon - an A590 which replaced the A570 I dropped, which replaced the A85 that got lost. Each one cost less and gave more resolution- that's progress. Of course buying them all was not progress - just dumbness. The whole lot of them have the same controls. I can get good close focus in macro (aka closeup) mode.

 

Trial and error has also taught me that photos of disks are generally (four times out of five, more or less) better without using the flash (when the "Auto" mode of the camera senses a flash is needed). However, for that one time out of five, under low light conditions I will take a few photos with and a few without the flash just to be sure I get one decent photo.

Good advice. I do this too.

 

And if the sun is very bright, I stand in the way so there is no direct sun on the subject. Nothing worse than having half the thing in light and half in shade. The sun lighted part will get bleached out badly.

 

I do not mess with the photos before I upload them. ("Yeah, we know!")

 

Will

 

I find a little editing goes a long way. At a minimum, cropping and resizing. I always take pictures at full resolution That way you have more to work with for cropping, etc, and you can also blow it up to an 8" x 10" and send it as a Christmas present to your wife For example that disk picture I showed above was originally 3264x2448 pixels (about 3 Mb). After rotating, cropping, enhancing and resizing, it ended up 600x620 (219 kb). But I still save the original for whatever reason. With storage, both on the camera and on the computer hard drive so cheap, I save every thing. I paid 7 dollars for a 2 Gb card for the camera.

 

BTW: the GC system limit is 600 pixels width (arbitrary length) or 150 kb file size. So my disk picture is OK at 600 pix width even though it's 219 kb. I've found the file size limit is 150 kb, even though it says somewhere that the limit is 125 kb. I guess they allow a little fudge factor.

Edited April 13, 2009 by Papa-Bear-NYC

[+Harry Dolphin]

My problem is that I tend to take my photos too close. That does not always leave me enough room to straighten out the photos. I usually use the flash (and use Andy Bear to block out the sun.) Less contrast that way. My originals are 1632 x 1232 pixels, about 800 kb. I try to straighten them, adjust the contrast, and resize to 800 pixels. Usually works pretty well for me.

[+Klemmer]

I'm with Papa-Bear.

• Get close (if you can), and use the macro focus setting. Zoom if you can't get close.
  
• Take full resolution [8 MegaPixels (MP) most recently]
  
• Rotate
  
• Crop as required
  
• Resize to about 600 pixels (square for discs, about 700 pixels longest dimension for non-square)
  
• Adjust compression so that file size is about 125KB (+/-10KB or so)
  
• If compression in order to get file size down to the desired range gets below about 85 or so, I re-think the cropping & re-sizing operations above
  

I'm generally happy with the above results. My favorite software for all the above, for many years, which makes it easy: ThumbsPlus

 

Recent example:

 

Guess I'll try Papa-Bear's advice & bump up the files size to 150KB max, and see if GC leaves it alone. Thanks!

[+billwallace]

view shot from the benchmark JACK in northern AZ

Jeez, I love those pix from JACK.... those pictures by the way got me started thinking about the larger pixel dimensions and just limiting the filesize

[ArtMan]

Most image editing programs have some sort of sharpening tool. (I use a very old version of Photoshop Elements, which has several; the most flexible is called 'unsharp mask.')

 

Sharpening up a disk closeup can improve legibility and, to me, creates a more aesthetically pleasing photo. The temptation is to over-sharpen. Don't do it. Apply just a very little bit of sharpening — take the time to experiment — so that when you toggle in and out of preview mode the change is just barely noticeable. (One extra step that seems worthwhile to me: use the selection tool to apply the sharpening only to the disk itself, which will make it stand out almost imperceptibly from the surrounding material.)

 

Echoing several previous comments: I have been very, very afraid of my photo being reduced in size/quality by the site, so I have carefully kept within the stated size limits, without realizing that the stated maximums of 600px/125k were not, in fact, the limits. So I may change my practice which has been to size disk closeups at 450px square, and ~550px on the longest dimension for other shots.

 

I cannot overemphasize the importance of using macro mode for closeups. All but the most very basic cameras now have it, and there is usually a button or a thumbwheel setting with an icon that looks something like this —.

 

I almost never use flash for a closeup. If you're tempted, shoot it both with and without the flash and see which looks better. A very useful tool is a reflector; a white sheet of paper works fine to gently illuminate a disk in shadow.

 

In area views that include the disk (or other small target), I used to use arrows, but now find enclosing the area of interest in a small box is better. Again using Photoshop Elements, the relevant command is 'stroke' (which is admittedly an odd name for this function.) In my old version I select a small box around the object I want to highlight, then choose the 'stroke' command from the 'edit' menu. I draw a 2px line, usually yellow unless that doesn't stand out. Just one of several options to consider.

 

-ArtMan-

[2oldfarts (the rockhounders)]

We use a Canon S5IS 8 mega-pixel camera with 12X optical zoom.

 

For pictures of the disks we use cornstarch (when it isn't too windy and when I remember to put it in my pocket before heading for the benchmark.). I usually stand to get the picture of the mark. I zoom in until the disk (&GPSr) fills the viewfinder. We keep the camera set to 3264 X 2448 pixels and resolution set to finest (4 to 5 MB in size). Standing also allows you to use your own body as a sunscreen and cast a shadow over the entire disk.

 

We use the zoom feature to help "crop" the picture Before taking the shot. We use Photoshop Elements "1" to enhance the pictures if necessary. We prefer to use the contrast and brightness control to help sharpen a picture without getting the grainy pixelated look. We add pointers (arrows usually) before resizing. Size depends on what the picture shows and will run from 800 pixels on the longest side to 1000 pixels on that size. We compress the picture down to 100K to 110K because there are still people out there using dial-up internet and this give a good picture with a 'decent' download time.

 

Remember to get a good focus before taking the picture. A lousy focused picture cannot be corrected with any enhancement program! If it doesn't look good in the viewfinder, then it will probably look even worse on the computer screen.

 

John & Shirley

[TillaMurphs]

This is a great forum - so many nice people with helpful replies. Thanks.

 

I always resize my photos before uploading. I am just trying to find the absolute rule on what the limits are. I tried to do some experiments but the results were never clear on what the true limitations were. I was hoping to find the equation/rule that geocaching.com uses to decide whether or not to resize an incoming photo. However, maybe Papa Bear NYC has explained it (see father down below).

 

Somewhere in the GC.com help there is a statement about 600 px max or 120/125k filesize max - or the site will resize it for you. I can't figure out from the statement whether you have to be under both limits or just one

Echoing several previous comments: I have been very, very afraid of my photo being reduced in size/quality by the site, so I have carefully kept within the stated size limits, without realizing that the stated maximums of 600px/125k were not, in fact, the limits. So I may change my practice which has been to size disk closeups at 450px square, and ~550px on the longest dimension for other shots.

At least it appears that I am not alone in pondering this situation.

 

 

BTW: the GC system limit is 600 pixels width (arbitrary length) or 150 kb file size. So my disk picture is OK at 600 pix width even though it's 219 kb. I've found the file size limit is 150 kb, even though it says somewhere that the limit is 125 kb. I guess they allow a little fudge factor.

Thanks Papa-Bear-NYC, maybe you have the answer I have been looking for.

 

I see that you posted photos that were:

- 229959 bytes @ 541 x 559 pixels

- 153416 bytes @ 745 x 559 pixels

 

Are you saying that if the width is under 600 pixels then the picture can be any file size and that if the file size is under ~150k then the pixel size is not limited?

 

A quick scan of your most recent four finds leads us to ask for better examples of unclear pictures. These are very good, we think.

(Thanks for the compliment). It is not so much that the uploaded pictures are bad; it is just that often things are much clearer in the original photo and it is sad to see less detail on the uploaded photo. Of course, that is to be expected with a compressed and smaller photo. I just want to push the limits and present the clearest possible photo within GC restrictions. This is usually not a problem with disk close-ups. It is more often a problem with the wide shots where perhaps small pieces of flagging might not show up (or only barely show up) or where it is not as easy to pick out the disk from the surrounding foliage as it was in the original photo.

 

Thank you all.

 

-The TillaMurphs

[Papa-Bear-NYC]

Thanks Papa-Bear-NYC, maybe you have the answer I have been looking for.

 

I see that you posted photos that were:

- 229959 bytes @ 541 x 559 pixels

- 153416 bytes @ 745 x 559 pixels

 

Are you saying that if the width is under 600 pixels then the picture can be any file size and that if the file size is under ~150k then the pixel size is not limited?

-The TillaMurphs

Yes.

[+PFF]

2oldfarts (the rockhounders) wrote:

 

I usually stand to get the picture of the mark. I zoom in until the disk (&GPSr) fills the viewfinder.

 

 

In theory, the older you are, the more likely you are to stand. If you're on a team hunt with me and you're young and flexible, you get to apply the corn starch. [see photo below.]

 

 

We prefer to use the contrast and brightness control to help sharpen a picture without getting the grainy pixelated look.

 

 

I agree. Work with the contrast control until you get the desired clarity. Then adjust the brightness to compensate for the slightly darker image.

 

 

We add pointers (arrows usually) before resizing.

 

I've noticed that this shrinks the arrows and boxes, along with the image. Lately, I've added the pointers after size adjustment. Also, this leaves the original image unmarked, so it can be used for other purposes. For instance, this house was used on GC.com (EZ2516), Waymarking (Nat'l Registry of Historic Places), and was uploaded to GoogleEarth.

 

Remember to get a good focus before taking the picture. A lousy focused picture cannot be corrected with any enhancement program!

Amen! Don't we wish we had such a program.....!!!

 

-Paul-

 

ArtMan using MACRO during a team hunt.

 

 

[TillaMurphs]

Are you saying that if the width is under 600 pixels then the picture can be any file size and that if the file size is under ~150k then the pixel size is not limited?

-The TillaMurphs

Yes.

 

 

WOO HOO! Question answered. Thanks Papa-Bear!

 

(And Thank You also to ALL of you that replied.)

 

-The TillaMurphs

[Wintertime]

You can see the requirements simply by clicking on the Upload Image link in any of your Geocaching.com logs (geocaches or benchmarks). Here's what it says:

 

---------

File upload supports the following formats: jpg, gif, tiff.

 

Some Tips

 

* If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized.

* It doesn't do the best resizing job. Editing your own larger image is preferable.

* Final images will always be converted to jpg.

----------

 

Patty

[AZcachemeister]

I have an 'older' HP PhotoSmart 315.

It has three three available photo sizes (S/M/L) and no adjustment for DPI or anything else.

I use the medium 'format' and the resulting photos are 1600X1200@300DPI...about 452KB.

 

I never resize the photos before uploading, but I do try to be careful and make sure *up* in the photo is at the top!

 

Never had a problem with a photo that was clear on my screen at home becoming unclear after uploading.