You're viewing a single thread.
Thanks for the link to the creator's social media account, but that image is jpeged to hell.
Here's a much better copy
30 4 ReplyMuch better
has like 5% less compression which is barely visible in direct comparison
13 7 ReplyOriginal is 1.47mb. OP's is 0.47mb. That's about 3x smaller and it's a significant difference in clarity.
It's fine if that doesn't matter to you, but don't spew shitty info just because you don't care about the difference.
11 1 ReplyOP's pic was fine, the quality was good enough for what it is, and it only used 1/3 of the space and bandwidth on the server.
5 5 Reply"Won't anyone think of the bandwidth of the poor server?"
Screw that, give us the high quality stuff. Shit would almost fit onto a floppy disk. 1.47mb is nothing.
3 1 ReplyQuality snob* here
Totally fine
*not really, just reverse image search JPG’d images and post originals when I notice something’s ugly
2 2 Reply
Disagree. One is kinda blurry and the other is crisp and clear. The difference is night and day.
4 1 ReplyThats probably your app previewing the image in the post that way. If you open up the file its almost the same.
3 0 ReplyDownloaded both on desktop, still a pretty significant difference?
3 0 Reply