Thanks for posting your wonderful picture to

www.ipernity.com/group/buildings

Thanks for the appreciation, John.

After having spent (wasted?) half this morning working on this picture, removing a parked car, two unwanted figures, a TV aerial, a collection of industrial-sized wheelie bins, a traffic cone, two street lamp/traffic signs, a bollard, road markings, a bench, a burglar alarm and a junction box and cables, and after all that replacing a missing hanging sign and adding a shadow for it, your positive comment has been very welcome.

It seems a little blurred. Is that just my differing eyesight, or has it something to do with this extreme heat they reckon we're having? Is the Lansdown Arms about to self-combust?

Thanks for pointing this out. On close inspection, it IS blurred, and I don't know why. Compare it with the same image (the same .jpg file was uploaded to both websites) on Flickr - www.flickr.com/photos/14463685@N07/52237953325. On Flickr it's MUCH sharper.

I've tried uploading the original, uncompressed .tif file but it comes up the same. Is Ipernity compressing upload files more nowadays to save storage space? I've just compared the engraving on the war memorial picture with the equivalent on Flickr, and the difference is just as marked. There's no technical support on Ipernity, so I don't know what to do.

O was for 'oops', as I'd thought you had it out of focus.
It's definitely sharper on F*cker, though still not 100%.

You could try messaging the Ipernity team on the Help & Contact page (below).
Let me know their answer.

I have, asking them to compare the two images of the war memorial.

The resolution in the Flickr version of the above picture is par for the course for a shot taken at the long end of the zoom. At that end, only one part of a 'deep' scene like this can be 100% in focus, and in this case it's the writing on the pub wall which is, and it's sharp, certainly on the original.

See Messages.

The bottom line is that all uploaded images are displayed in low resolution in Ipernity when viewed and enlarged in the normal way. This IMHO is a design weakness; there is no equivalent problem in Flickr.

Superb capture! Stay well!

Admired in: www.ipernity.com/group/tolerance

I agree that F*cker is technically better, though I personally don't like the layout. Seeing as you have accounts with both, couldn't you make do with posting lower resolution on Ipernity?

All that would achieve would be to remove the disparity between images viewed in the normal way (which 99% of Ipernity users do, you and I included) when they appear to be blurred, and the originals viewed via "View all sizes".

It's not the disparity which is the problem. The problem is that the pictures, when viewed normally, are displayed in low resolution. That fact, for some reason, is particularly noticeable with this picture.

I did suspect something amiss a while back, when I noticed one of my own pictures didn't look as good as it should, and I even messaged Andy Rodker to ask if he'd noticed similar with his.

But my point is, can't you make do with the shortcomings on Ipernity, seeing as you already have a F*cker account to show off your masterpieces to perfection?

I am forced to make to do with the shortcomings on Ipernity because there is no way (other than saying, under every picture: "Please look at the full-res version by doing [so-and-so]") that these can be worked round or overcome.

The problem is that when people (99.9% of Ipernity users) view them only on Ipernity, in the normal way, they get the impression that the pictures are out of focus, and publicly declare them to be "O".

But you have a couple of flatterers who faved it anyway and likely didn't even notice its faults, so what are you worried about? You don't need to bother with 'all sizes'. Just put "please look at my perfect version here" and redirect them to F*cker. That way you'll get extra views.

I have no flatterers, just two or three other followers who notice my pictures' qualities as well as their alleged faults. I'm not unduly worried, but I do expect any photo sharing website to display users' pictures at a reasonable resolution by default.

Inviting people to view the same pictures on Flickr would be presumptuous, but (if they were to notice) it would drop Ipernity a hint.

What did Andy Rodker say?