Still Hoping to Hear.

Would like to know if this a problem or a feature or something I'm doing wrong?

May be a correct anser

I think it's because if the photo is on the MRH site it's stored at 750 width, but if you use a photo hosting site and post the picture it will expand to whatever the photo size was saved on the photo hosting sight.

Bernd 

Let me test this....

This is a freshly uploaded copy of the Sylvan Trucks photo -

This is a copy of the Sylvan Trucks photo that I uploaded previously (slightly different filename, identical photo) -

Okay, that seems to be the way it works.

Interesting - I'd never noticed that before. One thing that can be done, is link to the original photo on our server. There is some stuff after the name that should probably be deleted (the question mark and anything after it) -

You can also right click on an image and select "Open image in new tab" which works as well. 

Interesting to note that the

Interesting to note that the bottom one is noticeably sharper.

It shouldn't be sharper....

it's the same photo, just renamed.

Same sharpness

When I pull them into Photoshop. Jeff is correct.

it's sharper

Jeff, it's being displayed sharper here too.

In Firefox, when I right click on the first image and do 'View Image Info' it will show me that it's actual dimensions are '750px × 500px', while the second picture will show "1,600px × 1,067px (scaled to 750px × 500px)'. So the first one is a scaled down JPG served by the MRH webserver, while the second one is the JPG send over in whole but via HTML tags the dimensions are scaled down at the browser side.

In the second case Firefox likely uses a better algorithm to scale down the image keeping (most of) it's original sharpness -or- in the first case, the "lossy" compression setting for creating the scaled down JPG file by the webserver is noticably causing some fuzziness in the image. This compression setting might be configurable within the website software at the cost of larger files if setting less compression.

Looks like it's the compression

Jeff,

I downloaded both JPG files and opened them up in IrfanView and checked the compression:

The 750x500pixel one:

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 75

The 1600x1067 pixel one:

CREATOR: gd-jpeg v1.0 (using IJG JPEG v62), quality = 80

That 5% more compression on the first one might be all it takes to introduce that little bit of extra fuzziness.

Huh.

I just fired up Firefox (I was using Google Chrome) and you're right - the lower photo does look better.

Great... just another thing for me to worry about as a photographer, especially as most of my photos are getting posted using the top method!

Yeah, That Works.

A little clunky, but usable! Thanks!

In reference to:

Okay, that seems to be the way it works.

Interesting - I'd never noticed that before. One thing that can be done, is link to the original photo on our server. There is some stuff after the name that should probably be deleted (the question mark and anything after it) -