The best way to post photos on RFF to avoid IQ degradation

valdas

Veteran
Local time
7:37 AM
Joined
Jan 2, 2007
Messages
2,519
I was now wondering for some time what is the best way to post images on this forum in order to show it without losing the quality. Image size, resolution, posting as attachment or link (say, BBCode from Flickr)? Whatever I am trying, I notice the difference in quality here, on RFF, vs the same image in my PC or posted on Flickr. Are there any compression algorithms used when image is posted here which makes it look different from the original?
 
Last edited:
Post a photo here as an attachment, and next to the same photo linked to Flickr, so viewers can compare.
I can do that, but my problem is that even when posted as an attachment it loses the quality vs what I see in my computer. Maybe I was not clear - both “insert image” and “post as link” options do degrade the quality. But I will post when at my PC (now posting from ipad).
 
That's the reason for the side-by-side. Forum software doesn't do anything to linked photos, so a flickr link will be displayed using flickr scaling, compression, and color handling. Attached photos are displayed using the default Xenforo software (i.e., PHP GD image processor) for compression, scaling and color handling.

I have asked @MP Guy to install different image processing software (Imagemagick) which should be an improvement for attached images.
 
Agree with the above two posts and also there is a difference is you are logged in or not. (Smaller resolution is displayed when not logged in - at least on my 27' Retin 5K iMac). Lot of variables.

I thought the XenForo software down-resolutioned posted images or maybe it's an admin decision/option?

Left: Not logged in to RFF
Right: Logged in to RFF
Screenshot 2026-01-04 at 11.44.13 AM.png
 
That's the reason for the side-by-side. Forum software doesn't do anything to linked photos, so a flickr link will be displayed using flickr scaling, compression, and color handling. Attached photos are displayed using the default Xenforo software (i.e., PHP GD image processor) for compression, scaling and color handling.

I have asked @MP Guy to install different image processing software (Imagemagick) which should be an improvement for attached images.
I was wondering about that Flickr scaling - when I copy BBCode, there are size options to choose from. I am never sure which one to select…
 
Two images posted side by side can appear slightly different even if they originated from the same photo file. This usually comes down to how the image is handled behind the scenes. When an image is uploaded directly to the forum as an attachment, the forum software processes it to fit within size and performance limits, which can include recompression, thumbnail creation, and removal of some embedded data such as color profiles.

When an image is linked from an external site such as Flickr, the forum does not process or modify it at all; the image is delivered directly by the external host using that service’s own image handling, with the browser simply scaling the image to fit the page if needed.

Because attached images and linked images pass through different systems, small visual differences can occur, and this behavior is normal and applies equally to all users. For best results when uploading an attachment, exporting the image locally at or below the forum’s maximum size (1600 pixels on the long edge), using the sRGB color space, and moderate JPEG quality helps minimize additional processing by the forum’s image library.

For images linked from Flickr, selecting a “Large” size (such as 1600 pixels on the long edge) provides a good balance of quality and page layout, while allowing Flickr and the browser to handle scaling cleanly without forum-side processing.

Xenforo 2.3 offers image optimization via WebP although there are trade-offs (older browsers don't support WebP, conversion to WebP can result in double compression, i.e, original jpeg compression followed by WebP compression.) We currently are not using this option.
 
Two images posted side by side can appear slightly different even if they originated from the same photo file. This usually comes down to how the image is handled behind the scenes. When an image is uploaded directly to the forum as an attachment, the forum software processes it to fit within size and performance limits, which can include recompression, thumbnail creation, and removal of some embedded data such as color profiles.

When an image is linked from an external site such as Flickr, the forum does not process or modify it at all; the image is delivered directly by the external host using that service’s own image handling, with the browser simply scaling the image to fit the page if needed.

Because attached images and linked images pass through different systems, small visual differences can occur, and this behavior is normal and applies equally to all users. For best results when uploading an attachment, exporting the image locally at or below the forum’s maximum size (1600 pixels on the long edge), using the sRGB color space, and moderate JPEG quality helps minimize additional processing by the forum’s image library.

For images linked from Flickr, selecting a “Large” size (such as 1600 pixels on the long edge) provides a good balance of quality and page layout, while allowing Flickr and the browser to handle scaling cleanly without forum-side processing.

Xenforo 2.3 offers image optimization via WebP although there are trade-offs (older browsers don't support WebP, conversion to WebP can result in double compression, i.e, original jpeg compression followed by WebP compression.) We currently are not using this option.
OK, that gives me some ideas how to optimize my posting. When I save my pictures as JPEG I usually use max quality and my long edge often exceeds 1600 (usually - 1700/1800). I’ll try to look at that. Also, will try to link “Large” size from Flickr instead of “medium”.
 
Assuming JPGs, what are optimal sizes for posting here and on Flickr? I’ve never setup an account on Flickr so have no knowledge of their requirements or how down sizing affects images.

When I first started posting images Pnet had a maximum size of 510 pixels if memory is correct. Now when saving for website use I aim for around 1000 pixels on long side. I seem to get lots of likes so must be doing something right.

RFF is pleasure to use, posting images couldn’t be easier. Before the current software I would upload to my gallery and link to it there.
 
1600 on the long side is the max for attachments on the forum, anything larger will be resized, so to eliminate that from happening don’t post beyond that size.
Did this change recently? I've always exported everything at 1200x1800 at 72dpi, but recently, uploaded images on RFF seemed to be taking a much bigger hit in terms of IQ than before.

I'll have to create a new RFF-friendly export setting in Lightroom to minimise the amount of compression/resizing being done on the servers. Hopefully that improves things somewhat.

Also, thank you for not enabling WebP. I absolutely hate that format - Google have become the new Microsoft for introducting new formats and "standards" that only they support.
 
No, not recently. It's probably been this way since I started doing admin 3 years ago, which was right after the new software was installed.

There is no resizing if you attach an image less than 1600 on the longest side.
 
For those not in the know: In Flickr, the standard large size is 2048x1369. However, when you click 'view all sizes', you can select the large size 1600x1069. After selecting this size, you still have to click on it and then download. Cheers, OtL
 
_7000761.JPG
the trick on rff i found to this is post the jpeg using 'insert image' with single landscape-looking icon.
then after it shows up on reply page at larger intended size, click once w/mouse on center of image chosen,
creating a blue crop box around full image.

then drag right-side of blue corner tag to smaller size to close to ~50% of page width, click outside box, save.
It shows image at closer to correct intended viewing resolution while sometimes it seems it doesn't matter unless looking for sharpness.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom