Was playing around with quality settings for fun and accidentally discovered that actually, super low quality JPEGs can look kind of cool and aesthetic. Give it a try, cook some JPEGs at arbitrarily low quality and see how they look. I've gotten best results from qual=0 to qual=10, personally, with most looking best around qual=5 or lower.Tips:>No difference between qual=0 and qual=3. Qual=4 is the first step that looks different from qual=0.>4:4:4 subsampling yields a finer pixelisation effect than 4:2:0, although the actual difference in practice is not always noticeable. I don't think either is necessarily better than the other in terms of achieving the look.>Progressive encoding and optimised Huffman tables have no effect on the look so no reason not to use em.>Smoothing changes the pixelisation a little bit but not enough to worry about imo, mostly just makes it looks blurrier/fuzzier. Actually I think the softer edges detract from the harsh look.Picrel is the one that started it all. Looks like something you'd see in an Amiga game. I'm gonna try printing some of these on copy paper with my home office inkjet to "enhance" the look.>Local dogsnapper likes low-quality imagesPottery. Not huskyfag btw.
>>4527863Second one. Running this through the crunchifier made the subtle pinks in the sky considerably stronger, and the reduction of some into greyscale gives the pinks, blues, and yellows some interesting contrast, imo.
>>4527864This one was fun to make. It's actually a composite of qual=4 and qual=10, I layered the qual=10 version under the qual=4 version and used soft erasing to get some colour on the left side of the rooftop which had been reduced to grey in qual=4, as well as to put some colour into the light reflection on the Vette, while keeping the stronger pixelisation, colour banding, and desaturation of qual=4.
>>4527865Aw shit forgot picAlso I was pleasantly surprised to find that re-exporting the end result at quality 10 added some extra colour banding and seemed to increase overall contrast, which I think is an improvement for the look.
>>4527863I've wanted to crunchify pics, invert them then print them on transparency paper to use for alt process printing, but it's quite tricky to get the density curve correct to make satisfactory prints.
>>4527867I think intentionally low-quality printing will enhance the look, personally. I'd try printing these on a dot matrix printer if I still had one.
I just pasteurized this one to hell
>>4527881what it looks like with maximum compression and no effects
>>4527866Another dogsnap. This time using the same trick I used with the Vette to put some colour back in his eyes and mouth, as well as the little brown bush plant things behind him.
>>4527883Looks like a video game. Keep it up. Your dog looks based and cute.
>>4527882I think you're doing something wrong (technically right), I ran that through GIMP and got picrel at qual=0. If that's maximum JPEG compression it should look way crunchier.>>4527881That turned out good. Looks a little smoother than my attempt, I like the more colourful sky.Heh, /p/gull.
>>4527883Mountain range. Looks kinda like a background from a point-and-click adventure. The mountains and sky had too much colour so I replace them with a desaturated version, then let some yellow bleed through to give the impression of light.>>4527884Thank you! But he's actually my dad's dog, not mine, though I'll pass that along. He takes him on a hike every day so sometimes I meet up to hang out. Fun dog, helped take care of him when he was a puppy.Funny enough despite being a dogsnapper neither of those dogsnaps were actually taken by me, they're both my dad's, I just happen to have a copy of each. It's not stolen thunder as long as I disclaim it, right?
>>4527932 (Me)The printing is going... well, it's definitely going. I did a bunch of test prints, I wasn't counting but it was at least 20, maybe 30 or more, trying to see if I could get any interesting colours or printing artifacts, but ironically the best settings ended up being just high print quality, automatic colour correction, and everything pretty much set to the default. Nice thing about having an ecotank printer, the price per print is basically nothing since the ink is so cheap. And I'm not in danger of running out of copy paper.I've got two keepers so far, need to get to printing the rest that I've crunchified. Annoyingly the Windows print wizard doesn't have any way to crop at the time of printing so I have to crop for 8.5x11 manually then print.
>>4528079Very cool that you're making prints. Are you going to frame one and give it to your dad?
>>4528080Maybe. I'm not sure if he'd appreciate the look, though. I have some nice PPD printable canvas that I've been meaning to print some of his photos on, as well as some of mine, in normal non-crunchified quality. I suppose it wouldn't hurt to just see if he wants em.
>>4528081I wonder how the pixellated look would be on a really high quality glossy paper. Maybe a small print like a 4x5 sized so it's a small thing he could put on a desk or fireplace mantle.
>>4528083I think I can get that printed for like 2 or 3 bucks at the drug store next time I'm out that way. Worth a try, just to see how it looks. Though I do still think just regular copy paper is a good fit for the look, plus both of us like a bigger print anyways.
>>4528083Oh yeah which one do you reckon I should try getting printed on glossy paper? I'm thinking the very first one.
>>4528085First one or the seagull one.
I use an app called 8bitphoto
Also a dog photogrosophist
This is retarded beyond belief and you have no eye for visuals at all.
