Flickr's liquid layout causes blurry / soft photos

UPDATE 05/21/13: Flickr went live with a redesigned web site today, and... the BLURRY PHOTOS ARE BACK. Photos below 1024 are being downsampled again, and the slight blurriness that I noted in that first example below has returned. Sigh. I give up.

UPDATE 06/13/12: Following a suggestion made in the help thread, I'm happy to note that FLICKR HAS REMOVED DOWNSAMPLING FOR ALL PHOTOS BELOW 1024px. For me, that effectively solves this issue. I'm going to leave this post in place for purely historical purposes.

-------------------

I wrote a couple of weeks ago about how I didn't care for Flickr's new "liquid" layout. My chief complaint at the time concerned the overall design of the site, and how the layout interacted poorly with vertical photos and also the smaller photos in my archive. I'm still annoyed by that, but a much bigger problem has come to the the forefront since then. Flickr's liquid design causes blurry photos.

Here's an example of a horizontal photo exhibiting this problem:



Original image: www.flickr.com/photos/abmarfia/6773676926/

Both screenshots are from the photo page. At full screen the 1024px version is displayed on my monitor (which has a resolution of 1600x1200px). To achieve the 1018px version I simply resized the browser until Flickr's liquid layout starts to downsample the photo. I've noticed this effect is most pronounced between 800px and 1024px, and most obvious on photos that include text, like the one above. I can trigger this blurriness in Firefox, IE, and Chrome, and have tried it on at least three different Windows machines. It's not limited to just my own photos. I can make your photos look blurry too!

Here's a vertical photo:



Original image: www.flickr.com/photos/abmarfia/6833975456/

In this case, I'm comparing a photo from the photo page with the exact same photo (Flickr's 800px Medium size) from the All Sizes page. When I take the screen shot and crop them in Photoshop they are the exact same size, yet I'm clearly not seeing the same photo on both pages.

This is a pernicious problem-- it effects everyone, but not many people can actually see it. If you're viewing Flickr from a lower resolution monitor, chances are you're seeing the old 640px version of photos (which still look fantastic) and everything is hunky dory for you. Even for those with high resolution screens, not everyone will notice the problem. It's just subtle enough that someone who isn't concerned with sharpness may not notice or care. Or maybe they'll think something is wrong with their eyes!

Isn't that fantastic-- a photo sharing site that makes you question your eye sight?

I've complained about this thoroughly in Flickr's help thread, but I've lost faith that Flickr intends to fix this problem. As of this writing, no staff have weighed in on the topic in over a week. [UPDATE BELOW]

UPDATE 06/10/12: As mentioned in the comments, flickr staff have weighed in on the help thread since I first posted, here, here and here.

UPDATE 06/13/12: Following a suggestion made in the help thread, I'm happy to note that FLICKR HAS REMOVED DOWNSAMPLING FOR ALL PHOTOS BELOW 1024px. For me, that effectively solves this issue. I'm going to leave this post in place for purely historical purposes.

UPDATE 05/21/13: Flickr launched a redesigned web site today, and... the BLURRY PHOTOS ARE BACK. Sigh.

Flickr goes live with 'liquid' layout, I groan

Flickr went live yesterday with a new "liquid" layout for their photo pages.  It’s meant to allow for larger photos on the photo page by dynamically resizing images depending on the resolution of your screen.  Not a bad idea in theory.  In practice, it's a mess.  This was my first experience with this layout (on a 1600x1200 screen monitor):



At first glance I assumed something had gone haywire in the browser.  It looks like a broken page with the photo pushed to the left and all that white space in the center.  After several refreshes, and then opening the page in a new browser, I finally found my way to the flickr blog, and then the help forum, where I realized this was in fact done intentionally!  Good grief.

Things thankfully get better when viewing a horizontal photo:



Then I realized that things get much worse.  Here’s a vertical image where the image is much larger in height (as opposed to the previous image which was only 900px):

[UPDATE at the bottom of the page: flickr has fixed this problem]



Notice how the image is cut off and you have to scroll to see the whole thing.  Even by scrolling I can't fit the entire image in the browser window.  This was also done intentionally.  You don't have to be a designer to realize that a photo sharing site should allow the view of an entire photo-- that's just common sense.

Finally, since this change only seems to be affecting photos posted after March of 2010, here's what every page in my archive from 2005 to 2010 looks like:



Again, you don't have to be a designer to realize this doesn't look right.  This is bad design in 2012.  Hell, it would have been bad design in 2002.

I've generally responded positively to changes that flickr has made in the past, but this new layout needs work and I hope they tweak it, a lot.  As is, it ruins the consistency of the interface and makes the photo page for every photo in my archive look like broken CSS.

------------------

I'd be remiss in not mentioning the article in Gizmodo yesterday: "How Yahoo Killed Flickr and Lost the Internet".  (Oddly timed on the same day that flickr rolled out this new layout).  While I agree with the basic premise-- that Flickr & Yahoo have missed opportunities and most casual users have left for Facebook-- my experience on Flickr is not the same as the author's.  I still find it to be a vibrant community of people who are passionate about photography, and I continue to have daily interaction there that I find meaningful.

------------------

UPDATE 5/16/12 9:30 PM

At some point this evening flickr released an update which solves my complaints about the vertical images getting cut off.  It also centers the images so they now look like this:



I appreciate the resizing fix but I'm not sure centering is much of an improvement.  Now, instead of white space on the right side we have huge patches of white space on the right AND left.  Also, this separates the photo from the title, which just looks odd.

UPDATE 6/1/12

Flickr's liquid layout is also causing blurry photos for some users.  This followup post has a couple of examples.

It's not art until it's been "explored"

I made the above comment earlier today, as a joke, in reference to flickr's fickle explore feature.  Currently yours truly has a photo up, somewhere, in the Last 7 Days section:



I know it's there because the stats say so, though I haven't found it myself.  This is, of course, very cool, and I appreciate the increased traffic and commentary from where ever it comes.  Still, I've come to realize over the years how completely random and arbitrary this stuff can be.  Sure, it helps when you have a good photograph, as I often do, but I've had quite a few excellent shots go uncommented entirely.  What the gods of flickr giveth, they taketh away.  I find it's best to just keep shooting and not worry about it.

Photo details: Nikon D7000 with 16-85mm lens, 1/320sec at f4.5, ISO200.  This was shot the morning after our first big snow storm of the year.

Nikon D7000 unboxing and first impressions!

I received my Nikon D7000 on Friday, November 19th.  The date is significant as it was exactly 2 months and 2 days since I preordered the camera from B&H.  I don't blame the delay on B&H, but wow, that's a long wait.

The camera arrived about 5 minutes before I left to meet some flickr friends for lunch.  I quickly unboxed it, attempted in vain to put my D90 battery inside (The D7000 takes a new battery-- I had forgotten this), then tried the battery that came with the camera.  To my surprise it had about half a charge.  Cool, I thought, I'm bringing it with!





What follows are my first impressions of the camera from that day and the following weekend.  This will not cover every aspect of the camera (for that, check out the preview at DPReview), just what I've noticed or what's important to me.

Size and Build:
I think too much has been written about how the D7000 is bigger and heavier than the D90.  This is overblown.  Yes, the spec sheet may show the D7000 as just a bit taller and heavier, but for all practical purposes, they're the same size and weight.  From a distance it's very hard to tell these two cameras apart.

Weather sealing:
Of course, there are differences, and significant ones at that.  The first is the improved weather sealing.  All the doors and openings now have rubber seals.  By no means would I describe this camera as water proof, but it's definitely an improvement from the D90 and should stand up well to light rain and snow.

Quieter Operation:
The D7000 has a much quieter shutter and mirror flap.  It was almost disconcerting the first time I heard it-- I actually wondered if there was something wrong.  And if that isn't good enough, there's also a quiet mode that makes even less noise.

Updated shutter release:
The shutter release button has a more mushy feel than the D90.  I don't think this is necessarily better or worse-- it's just different and will take some getting used to.  With the D90, the shutter had two very distinct clicks, one halfway down to focus, and the other to take the photo.  The D7000 has a distinct halfway point as well, but it doesn't click the way the D90 does.

Viewfinder:
I love the new viewfinder.  It shows 100% of what's being captured by the sensor as opposed to 96% by the D90.  I'm pretty anal retentive about my compositions, so this was one of my main reasons for buying this camera.

Autofocus:
The D7000 uses 39 autofocus points vs 11 with the D90.  In contrast, the D300 and up all have 51 points.  39 seems like plenty and I have no complaints with this system-- it works and works well in my limited use.

Autofocus Switch:
The autofocus switch that sits below the lens mount has been combined with the AF button that used to sit on top of the camera.  This made for quite a comedic few minutes the first time I tried to change the AF settings.  "Where did you put that button, Nikon!"  Of course, it's actually a great change, nicely combining all the AF functions into one place.

Mode Dial:
I have mixed feelings about the new mode dial.  It's now two tiered, which is great, but it also sticks up higher and the top dial is easier to bump out of place.  With the D90 I would periodically find the mode dial moved accidentally, and this is a problem that I expect will persist with the D7000.  It's not a deal breaker, and I'm not returning the camera, but it's pretty aggravating that Nikon screwed this up.  That top dial should either have a lock or be much harder to turn than it is.

Func and Preview Buttons
Both the function and depth of field preview buttons are now programmable.  On the D90, only the function button was.  So, if you're someone who never uses DOF Preview, you can assign that button to something else.

Live View & Video
There's a new Live View switch on the back and it has a nice snap to it.  The autofocus in Live View seems to work better than in the D90, and the camera will now autofocus while shooting video.

Larger file sizes:
Something to bear in mind when upgrading to this camera-- although the sensor is only 4 megapixels larger (16 vs 12), the file sizes are actually about twice as big.  This is because the D7000 gives you the option of shooting 14 bit instead of 12 bit RAW files, and also uses lossless compression.  With these settings turned on, the end result is a file of about 18-20mb vs 10mb for the D90.

Image Quality:
I may address image quality (IQ) in a second post, but in short, I don't think anyone will be disappointed with this camera.  From what I can tell, The D7000 equals the D90 in terms of noise control through ISO800 and is a touch better at ISO1600 and 3200.  With the D90, I would generally shoot from ISO200 to 800 without worring about image quality, with ISO1600 and 3200 saved for emergency use only.  With the D7000, I expect that my normal use will increase to ISO1600, with 3200 and 6400 being much more usable.



Final Thoughts:
Other than the too easy to move Mode Dial, I have little to complain about with this camera.  If you're a Nikon D90 owner looking to upgrade, this is a very capable camera, and I think you'll be pleased with the professional feature set and modest IQ improvements.  If you own an older camera and skipped the D90 generation, the decision to upgrade is much easier.  Finally, if you use the D300 or D300s, ergonomics will come into play-- some will prefer the smaller size of the D7000, while others may prefer the more bulky D300.  If you fall into the latter category, I suggest you wait until next year to upgrade-- there's bound to be a D400 eventually.

Where to Purchase?
Since I waited two months for my own camera, I'm probably not the best person to answer this question.  Amazon is currently not taking orders, and B&H shows the D7000 as unavailable.  I would try a local camera store or maybe give a big retailer like Best Buy a shot.  Or, just wait until after the holidays when production catches up to demand.

Update: Amazon now has the kit version in stock for $1,499.95.  This comes with the f/3.5-5.6 DX VR Nikkor Lens, which is pretty good lens as far as kit lenses go.  If you're hoping to get this camera before the holidays and haven't ordered it yet, this may be your best option.

Finally, I'll leave you with a photo.  This is the first shot that I took with the D7000:


Nikon D7000 with 35mm lens, 1/800sec at f6.3, ISO200.  I'm looking north on State Street in this photo. 

Update: I'm slowly posting additional photos on flickr, and will continue to do so indefinitely.  Just follow the D7000 tag if you'd like to see more.

Flickr takes Steroids, launches new photo page

If you're a flickr addict like me, you've probably noticed that flickr is previewing a new design and interface for their photo pages.  Log into flickr and look for a message at the top that says "take me to the future".  Click on that and you'll see what I mean.  The new look is pretty dramatic.  I've been playing around with it for a couple of days now and here are the notable changes:

Increased photo sizes:

This is the biggest and most obvious change-- photos are now displayed at 640 pixel widths instead of the old default of 500 pixels.  This is why I titled this post "flickr takes steroids" because the photos look supersized.  Overall, I think this is a very positive change.  500 pixels always seemed a little too small to me.  Especially in instances where members had disabled viewing the large versions for copyright protection, it made it hard to fully judge the quality of the photos.  This remedies that.  640 pixels seems plenty big.

Improved viewing – 'large on black' now built in:

For years now, flickr members have been using workarounds (myself included) to show their photos on darker backgrounds.  Flickr has clearly noticed this as they've built in that functionality to the new interface.  Above each photo is a magnifying glass that takes you to a large version of your photo on a dark background.  Once there you can click "view all sizes" to see the other sizes available.

Improved Copyright:

One thing that always bugged me about the old version of flickr was that the copyright seemed buried at the bottom of the page.  Whether you elect to "All Rights Reserve" your photos or use a Creative Commons license, it's important that visitors can find that, and it feels a touch more prominent now.  In addition, it's clear when you view the photos on other pages.  For example, if you're on the "large on black" page, and you right click on the image, this brings up the copyright message.  Then, if you click over to the "view all sizes" page, the copyright is prominently displayed at the top.  Nice.

Downloading changes:

In the past, if you elected to not allow people to download your photos, this completely disabled the "view all sizes" page.  Now, that page is available but it says prominently at the top "The owner has disabled downloading of their photos" under the copyright.    In addition, through some magic of javascript or css (I haven't had a chance to examine that yet) flickr has disabled right clicking to download a photo.  This works in Firefox, Safari, and Chrome, but sadly not IE.

This is not likely to please everyone, but I'm okay with the new setup.  I have no delusions that anything flickr does will keep someone from stealing one of my photos if they're truly intent on stealing it.  You know who you are and you know how it's done-- I don't need to explain it to you.  But this new system does make copyright more prominent and should at least dissuade casual visitors from stealing, while at the same time allowing members to view the larger photos if they so desire.  It's a balancing act and there's no perfect solution.

Photo titles moved:

This is a small point, but I'm glad that flickr has finally moved the photo titles underneath the photographs, where they belong. If you walk into an actual gallery with photographs hanging on the wall, no one writes their titles above the photo in big block letters.  It's underneath.  Why should online photos be any less classy?

Lots of other changes:

I could go on and on.  If you geotag your photos, the map is now displayed to the top right of the photo.  Tags are now displayed in a word wrap style instead of top to bottom, which is a much more effective use of space.  Favorites now appear with the comments.  Most of the icons above the photo have been moved into a drop down menu.  Etc, etc.

Have I missed anything important?  Leave a comment and let me know.  For more information, check out the flickr blog post or the new group they've created.

Photo of the Week: "hey, you see an arm around here?"

One of the things that I've always found peculiar about flickr is the emphasis on photo titles.  Before I started posting on the internet, I never really gave much thought to titling things, but now it feels like a mandatory part of the creative process.  This is good and bad.  The good-- it often makes me think more constructively about my photography than I probably would otherwise.  In other words, giving something a title really makes me think "what is this photo about?" or "what do I want to draw attention to?"  The bad-- sometimes I just can't think of anything.

This particular photo fell into the latter category, so I actually emailed a couple of friends and solicited ideas.  Here's what the three of us came up with:

"High Five"
"Lost and Found"
"Hand it Over"
"Goodbye."
"Will I ever see you again?"
"With or without you"
"Left Behind"
"A Helping Hand"
"Hand Out"
"Pssst... I've Got Something to Tell You"
"Hey, You See an Arm Around Here?"

There are some serious sounding titles in there, but I ultimately chose the last one-- I'm easily swayed by my sense or humor in these matters.

Have a better idea?  Leave a comment and let me know.

Photo Notes: Nikon D90 with 55-200mm lens, 1/200sec at f4, ISO400.  This photo is featured on the front page of Chicago Public Radio dot com today.

29 for 2009: Chicago & Beyond

I've assembled a set of my favorite photographs taken in Chicago (and a few in New York) from 2009.  I was originally going to call this "29 for 2009", mirroring last year's set, but I'm having a hard time eliminating photos this year.  I don't think this means that my photos from 2009 are better, necessarily, just that I like more of them about the same.  Last year I think I had a better core of standout shots.

Click here to view the flickr set, or here to view it as a slideshow.  I still have some 2009 shots to post, but I think I'm going to call this set done for now.

Finally, some statistics that may interest only me: in 2009 I posted exactly 176 photos to flickr.  That comes out to about 1.16 photos per week. I thought this was low, but it turns out that I posted 178 photos in 2008 and 176 in 2007.  Weird.  Who knew I was so consistent!

Kobe and Me (a flickr stats love story)

This is the second most viewed photograph on my flickr account.  It's losing out only to this photo of the Bean, and is beating many, many excellent shots, including this one.  Since I first posted it in 2006 it has been viewed an astounding 2,474 times, and just today has already received 21 views.  I know this because of flickr's extremely addictive stat tracking system, which not only tells you how many hits a particular photo is getting, but in many cases where those hits are coming from.

I find this all rather amusing, because to be honest, I don't think it's a very good photo!  In fact, were I to take this one in 2009, I'm not sure if I would even post it on flickr (or at least I would process it better-- it looks a bit flat to me).  Rather, the reason this shot gets so many views is because I titled it "Kobe" and the word "house" appears in the description and the tags.  You see, apparently there's a lot of interest on the internet for "Kobe Bryant's House", and people have been unwittingly drawn to this shot after doing a Yahoo image search.

For the recond, this is actually a photo of the Humboldt Park lagoon in Chicago and the Humboldt Park boat house, with some random guy in a Kobe Bryant Jersey.  Kobe Bryant, I'm fairly sure, does not live in Humboldt Park nor fish in this lagoon.

Finally, as an aside... Go Nuggets Magic!

flickrsoft loves you?

Just having some fun with the announcement that Microsoft has offered $45 billion to buy Yahoo (which owns flickr). Flickr loves us, but what about Flicksoft?