Anyone have suggestions on how to correct or avoid compressed pics...On some other forums this pic would be much sharper...

]

I don't know what you mean by compressed , but is a very nice. clear picture to me. The depth of field is good also.
I like it!

use png

https://www.geeksforgeeks.org/difference-between-lossy-compression-and-lossless-compression/

Battue:

The loss of resolution is near always web site specific. I upload Cookie's images as jpg's at 1920 x 1200 pixels to Postimage. That's currently the pixel count for most medium level monitors with a 1.6 x 1 width:height ratio, and such will fill and fit my screen perfectly. That's about 11% of the original camera data, so yes, a tremendous amount of detail is lost. When I view that same image on the Postimage website, it renders at 1165 x 729 pixels. That's 849,285 dots which is still a lot of data.

When linked to other sites, however, these same images are often displayed at even more reduced resolutions. Mostly, I'd guess, the reductions are to save both upload/download time and memory demands as data are routed around the web.

An example:

On this site and with my screen, the owl is displayed at 1279 x 800 pixels, and it does not fill my display. Remember, the source image is actually 1920 x 1200.

Right click the owl image and click properties, and one should see exactly what the owl's resolution is on his display. Your forest image is coming up at 640 x 480 on my machine. Go back to the days of 800 x 600 monitors, and this owl would be much too large to view. Dating myself, but I remember a desktop image half this size taking 5+ minutes to render in the first versions of Windows. Now they simply burst onto the screen.

If I go back to Postimage and download the owl, it will come back to me and be saved at its original dimensions.
Full frame images that are 4,500 + pixels wide would take a long time to download and one would have to scroll side to side and up and down to see such in all its radiance. Most e-mail systems today won't handle one of Cookie's full frame images either, and there's little to be gained if its dimensions exceed the size of ones screen and we want to instantly see the big picture.

Running off a high quality print, however, is another deal entirely, as modern printers can squeeze 300 to 600 pixels into a 1-inch long line. At the small end, that's 90,000 pixels in a 1 x 1 inch square. Hence the need for millions and millions of pixels. It's no wonder ones camera gains so much weight with a good day of shooting.

The short answer is: there's not much we can do about it.

Have a good one,

Thanks, I didn't have my camera and took this pick with my Apple phone....which does pretty good until you zoom.... OK for close...However, even then it was much higher quality on my home screen...

Your 640 pixel wide image is going to lose some sharpness if it is enlarged to fit the image spot on the page. As 1' suggests, save at a larger size. I save images for forums at 1400 pixels and upload to postimages.org to link in the forum posts. You might try saving at 800, 1200, 1400 pixels, etc and compare how the different images look to you on the web. Did you use flikr as a host? What image size have you chosen to save as on flikr, if is gives you an option?
Save the files slated for the web in sRGB color space as AdobeRGB and ProPhotoRGB will show with flatter colors on the web.
If a large file is posted and compressed in size for the web, you may get halos along object edges, so you might sharpen your web files after downsizing for web to avoid halos.

Thanks,
Flikr, I increased the size on the same pic and good see an improvement.




Addition: well the increased size and improvement showed on the post preview, but not on the actual post???

Odd...Now it became bigger...

Much improved. Is that a gray or a fox squirrel back there in the left center?

Thanks for the tip...if there is one there, I didn't know....I was taking a pic of where a Sporting Clay target was crossing...

Looked, but I can't find anything...

i think I see what you are referring to...if so that would be around 50 yards out....I see the shape, but I doubt it is an animal...

Just pulling your leg here. Cookie recently sent a wilderness shot to a friend in England. Got it back with a small circle and his insistence that she'd captured a Bigfoot image. Just a juniper tree in the shade.