I put up a gallery image recently and the diagonal parts with highlights were ridden with those nasty jagged edges.   So, I went back and played a bit to make it better. I wound up saving in photoshop with "save as" and chose the compression for the jpg.  I also increased the "large view" image size and this took care of the problem.

I thought that photoshop "save for web" or the PSP "jpg optomizer" might be the problem as well as image size..allowing the jagged edges to pop up on the monitor.   Trying to duplicate the problem on my pc was fruitless.  

So, I ask, what do you use to save an image for posting here?  I am convinced to save through a simple "save as" command and select the compression rather than the various ways in software to save specifically for the web.  The image appears(even in not duplicated in this case) to be better saved in that manner than with a "web specific" saving option.

Any thoughts on this?   Thanks, TomDart.

I use the Save as... funtion mainly because it doesnt strip the exif data from the file so it is shown in the image details (nothing worse than someone asking for critique if the settings arent visible - plus it is good for people to see how a shot was taken for learning purposes).  Personally i think it should be mandatory to include exif, but that is just me and my nosey self wanting to know how a shot was taken and with what lens etc etc...

the jaggies might also come about because of the site's compression when viewing it... i always put my shots in as full size and not resized when uploading for that reason and because detail is also lost.  Also, oversharpening can increase the visibility of these "jaggies"... that might be one factor to consider.

I find the 9 setting (why it is out of 12 i know not) decent enough (unless you have a wide expanse of a similar colour, in which case artifacts are very noticeable).  Even with the exif attached, at 800px on the longest size, my shots rarely get above the 200kb mark... (which is good practice anyway - imagine the space RR could save if everyone who posted uncompressed jpegs at 500kb a pop posted each image under 200kb!)

Rich, I will consider what you have said.  This particular image perhaps contained too many highlight sorts of things at diagonals..I have seen this cause problems at screen resolutions.
Sharpening was mimimal in this case.

I do agree on file size.  This one was my largest as I best recall for a gallery image at 216kb.  Rarely is more needed or desired for that matter.  Most of mine are a bit smaller with gallery images not exceeding the "thread" limit of 200kb.

Thanks for the input.   and, just for you, again congrats on the fine looking website.    Tom

I think what you are experiencing is a Moire pattern effect due to the angle and distance between the rails. 
This disappears in the larger image because the distances have changed.  A larger file will help though I doubt it is any problem with the printed image just an unfortunate limitation of small sizes on a pc screen.

Whatever the cause: file size is cannot be the goal. Jpg compression, a kind of "let's assume that" ,  works fine with smooth transitions like clouds and skin, but not with intricate patterns with sudden changes due to  differences in hue and contrast.
It's not a good attitude to say that something has a maximum size. Real life does not bend to such rules.
That's why a slight blur can help a lot.

Also, the save for web option is optimized and better in quality. Because on the web filesize needs to be as small as possible, it's normal that all unnecessary data are eliminated.
Of course you can always use Irfanview for jaypeggin'. Imo it outperforms PS quite often.

Quote - I use the Save as... funtion mainly because it doesnt strip the exif data from the file so it is shown in the image details (nothing worse than someone asking for critique if the settings arent visible - plus it is good for people to see how a shot was taken for learning purposes).  Personally i think it should be mandatory to include exif, but that is just me and my nosey self wanting to know how a shot was taken and with what lens etc etc...

I did not know that.  Thanks. :)

Remembering the first upload of the image, I do believe that moire was the main culprit.  The angles and such with the 72 or so resolution of the pc monitor just would not cut it.    Anyway, upsizing and saving differently told me that two problems existed, one contributor to which may very well have been the conversion from tiff (or was it psd) to jpg but mostly moire from the patterns I remember.

Ahh..this resolution is still better than on my telly.     Thanks to all.       Tom.

@Tom...time for a new telly then.....you will not be dissapointed with an HDTV/Bluray combination.....

I actually remember a mod telling me to save my file at the resized size for web posting that I wanted (normally 700px either way) and then try and save the file size as close to the 512 limit that I can. So that's what I do and I was advised to rather have a clear image to view as rendo has tons of space...

Beware the file size PS tells you the file is going to be always winds up being higher than mentioned... So right click and look at the properties before you disguard your edited image or at least save it as a PSD document...

Plus all of my images are saved at 300dpi so that if some one right clicks and saves they are going to get a really shitty size (small) and printing at 72dpi will distort the image.

Vee 1 - Image stealers 0

FWiW, I use Save for the Web and rarely have a problem with artifacts. Those I usually catch in the preview.