| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/03/2008 12:19:48 AM · #1 |
I just re-upped my membership, but not without months of hesitation. I still maintain that the non-member resolutions that we are allowed are far outdated given current technologies and most monitor resolutions. I believe that Langdon consistently ignores the request of his users to allow higher resolutions, thus my long hesitation. I do, however, love this community and all that you guys do to make digital photography what it is today. Even with the community, this will be my final 12 months paying to use the site if resolution and size allowances are upgraded across the board. I'd like to see the size and bandwidth increased rather than allowing more portfolio space. We didn't even ask for that, but we have asked for better sizing. Langdon, please take a look at size allowances for challenges over the next year. I have paid my membership fee to you with the faith that you will finally listen to what the numerous polls have asked for. I hold high hopes that this site continues to grow.
Eric |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:22:31 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:29:15 AM · #3 |
Mine is due in 3 weeks, and I'm still debating to stay a paying member or not. I probably will re-up essentially for the community and the FS. I rarely enter regular challenges anymore unless I get lucky and shoot something that fits. But I agree larger entries are needed. Many shots lose a lot of effect being tiny. Its like when you print, yeah that photo looks good at 5x7 or 8x10, but just look how amazing it is at 16x20, 20x30.
Matt
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:58:04 AM · #4 |
Only problem with higher resolution is it encourages pic stealing, and if some people don't want their images stolen, but others don't care, those who are concerned suffer a competitive loss in challenges.
That being said, I do agree that larger images are far nicer to look at and especially to truly appreciate images, but I also think that this site is already plagued by copywrite infringers that feel the need to illegally use images as is, let alone when they could get higher quality examples. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 02:39:39 AM · #5 |
As far as image "theft" goes, I stand by the position that the best way to keep your image safe and sound is to keep it off the internet. I can't see anyone making their millions from a photo that they stole from me, and that is functioning as a professional photographer. I know that is a touchy subject, but I think that we make a much bigger deal of it than it really is. Even if we have a size that prints to an 8x10 and someone prints it, what have we lost on a personal level? I post my images to have them seen. If someone prints and shows it, am I not benefitting even more from the reason I posted my image in the first place? And who am I assuming that I am when image theft becomes such a big deal to me? To keep the image safe, it simply has to stay off the internet. Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen. I no longer critiques images in the Critique Club for the same reasons. Is that fair to those that ask that their images to be critiqued continue to be ignored? I say not.
Langdon has asked us several times if we wanted more resolution and files size allowances, and we have answered yes by majority each time. Still, we got only partial change. I fell in love with this site the instant I found it, and I still visit it multiple times each day. The images are just too small for me to fairly cast a vote from my machine. I'd like to see that remedied...please. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 02:41:21 AM · #6 |
Some of us are using laptops. 720 pixels at 72dpi for the height is as big as I can see without scrolling or shrinking the image. Both of those options make it harder to appreciate and evaluate the image.
As for the portfolio size, I very much appreciate the increase. I can enter more side challenges without having to delete the older images. And that keeps the side challenge threads in tact. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:38:52 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by JuliBoc:
Some of us are using laptops. 720 pixels at 72dpi for the height is as big as I can see without scrolling or shrinking the image. Both of those options make it harder to appreciate and evaluate the image.
As for the portfolio size, I very much appreciate the increase. I can enter more side challenges without having to delete the older images. And that keeps the side challenge threads in tact. |
But MOST of us do not.
From an earlier thread:
So, does the site continue to cater to the least or start taking care of the most? It would be better for me if you just shrink the image. That way, we could both see it as it was meant to be seen. The point is, we never asked for the portfolio increase. We ASKED for the size and resolution change. We didn't get what we asked for, did we? |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 03:49:49 AM · #8 |
Why not make everyone happy? Allow people to upload several sizes of their entries, up to 1600x1200 if they want. It will be their choice to risk people stealing them at that quality. Voters will be able to choose their preferred size and will automatically see the size of an entry that is closest to that.
Or require three sizes of each entry, then it is fair between members.
A dynamically resizing image via flash might be cool but would be extra overhead to viewers, and would remove sharpening control from members, however since everyone would be resized the same it would be fair, just no more ultra unrealistically sharp photos.
There are always options to any problem. Personally it doesn't bother me as much as the comment system but that doesn't mean it isn't an area that could be looked into and addressed if enough people want it.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:18:56 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen. I no longer critiques images in the Critique Club for the same reasons. Is that fair to those that ask that their images to be critiqued continue to be ignored? I say not. |
That certainly comes across as arrogant and elitist.
Who are you to take this stance?
I have NEVER heard anyone here approach this level of condescension towards their fellow photogs here at DPC.
Perhaps you should view some of the excellent work done here as it may help you to achieve better results for yourself.
That is very much a common thing among active and participating members, people's results improve exponentially from the help, advice, and techniques freely given.
The quality of the imagery here is incredible.
Some of the best work I've seen anywhere is here, bar none.
That you fail to see that IMNSHO is only a reflection on you.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:25:26 AM · #10 |
| He wasn't saying the quality of the photos was so terrible that he wouldn't critique them, but rather that the resolution limits make the image appear very small and therefore impossible for him to critique. (or at least that's what I got from it) |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:53:59 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen. |
I am wondering what kind of screen do you have.
On an 19" flat panel, 640px is about 18.5cm (7.28" for the metric-impaired)
On a 24" flat panel, it would be 17.5cm (6.9")
On a 30" flat panel, it would be 16.2cm (6.39")
Sure, the pictures could be displayed bigger on your screen, but I don't really understand why something which is at least 16cm would be too small to judge quality.
It is a matter of compromise: sure you want to please the majority of users, but that should not exclude other users (laptops). Let's say that 70% (arbitrary number used as an explanation purpose) of users could view bigger pictures. That is indeed a majority of users, but would that be a justification to exlude the remaining 30%? |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 06:58:58 AM · #12 |
For once I agree with  NikonJeb. :-) To say that you can't score an image better than 5 because of screen resolution makes absolutely no sense, and in my opinion is an unfair and "trollish" voting practice. You're judging an image based on the possibility that it MAY look worse at a higher resolution instead of looking at what's in front of you and going with that.
No matter what size the images in a challenge are, they are all going to be the same size, thus being given the same opportunity to do well. I do agree that a couple of images I have entered have suffered as a result of the smaller size. I know what it looked like at full size, and what it looked like when I uploaded it. As I said earlier though, everyone suffered right along with me.
I would also like to see the size bumped up a bit, but I would never let the file size limits change my voting.
food for thought... I recently entered some photos in the Ritz Camera photo contest, in which the entries will be judged by the New York Institute of Photography. Here are the size criteria...
# All online entries must conform to the following requirements:
* JPEG format only
* 250K or lower file size
* 400x300 pixel size max
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 09:52:08 AM · #13 |
Ritz Camera's main focus is consumer and amature photographres using point and shoot cameras... most of whom mainly send small images over e-mail to family and friends. Not to take away from consumer and amature point and shoot photographers, but the people that post images on here (even the amature and point and shoot folks) are several grades above the average Ritz photographer that will probably enter their contest. In my opinion the Ritz contest and this site is not a fair comparison.
There are always going to be dial up users and those that use slow computers and small monitors. If the site is going to wait until they have all upgraded to bigger and faster computers, it will never increase sizes. To use that analogy, I'm there are even some out there that are still using black and white, green or brown screens. Should DPC limit the use of color until they have all switched to VGA or high resolutions? ;)
Mike
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 09:52:39. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:12:45 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Ritz Camera's main focus is consumer and amature photographres using point and shoot cameras... most of whom mainly send small images over e-mail to family and friends. Not to take away from consumer and amature point and shoot photographers, but the people that post images on here (even the amature and point and shoot folks) are several grades above the average Ritz photographer that will probably enter their contest. In my opinion the Ritz contest and this site is not a fair comparison. |
I really enjoy DPChallenge and the competition here is fun, however I think your point is bordering on the edge of elitism.
The Ritz contest offers numerous cash prizes, starting with a couple top winners receiving $2000, then more at $1000 and $500.
Here's a link to some of last year's winners. Are some of them worthy of a DPC ribbon? Would they beat many of the entries submitted here for similar themed challenges? IMO - yes. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:22:00 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by MikeJ:
Ritz Camera's main focus is consumer and amature photographres using point and shoot cameras... most of whom mainly send small images over e-mail to family and friends. Not to take away from consumer and amature point and shoot photographers, but the people that post images on here (even the amature and point and shoot folks) are several grades above the average Ritz photographer that will probably enter their contest. In my opinion the Ritz contest and this site is not a fair comparison. |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I really enjoy DPChallenge and the competition here is fun, however I think your point is bordering on the edge of elitism. |
Sort of curious coming from someone who's been here three years and never entered a challenge, too.
I have never understood that whole attitude about levels/grades of quality in photographers.
There are plenty of good photographers that don't make any big deal out of it.....they just do it 'cause they like it and they're good at it.
They have nothing to prove, and nobody to prove it to, so they do as they wish with their work.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:33:37 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen. I no longer critiques images in the Critique Club for the same reasons. Is that fair to those that ask that their images to be critiqued continue to be ignored? I say not. |
I'd like to see larger images too, but here is where you just lost me, and I'm going to have to go with NikonJeb on this one. The current image size, is the size that was in place when you got here. You did somehow manage to do 276 indepth critiques with the critique club. Has your vision deteriorated that greatly, that you can no longer determine the quality of the image? You can't vote any image greater than five? Oh, puh-leeze! Seems rather hypocritical of you to enter any challenge, since it seems only fair that if you can't give more than a five, you should also expect that others cannot accurately judge your work and give you no more than a five.
You've apparently drawn a line in the sand, and are upping the ante to try to force things your way. Temper tantrums are never flattering. If you want to stay, stay. We love to have you. You are a darned fine photographer and I enjoy your work. If you want to campaign for larger sizes, great! If you want to rant, and threaten, well the door is right there and you are certainly encouraged to be some place that makes you happy. We will miss you, and wish you well in your endeavors.
As you can tell by this point, I have a very low tolerance for "If I don't get what I want, I QUIT!", messages. You are normally a very nice, reasonable person. Lets hope you can find that spot again. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 10:39:44 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
I'd like to see larger images too, but here is where you just lost me, and I'm going to have to go with NikonJeb on this one. |
He could have been a tad more diplomatic. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:26:10 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen. I no longer critiques images in the Critique Club for the same reasons. Is that fair to those that ask that their images to be critiqued continue to be ignored? I say not. |
I'd like to see larger images too, but here is where you just lost me, and I'm going to have to go with NikonJeb on this one. The current image size, is the size that was in place when you got here. You did somehow manage to do 276 indepth critiques with the critique club. Has your vision deteriorated that greatly, that you can no longer determine the quality of the image? You can't vote any image greater than five? Oh, puh-leeze! Seems rather hypocritical of you to enter any challenge, since it seems only fair that if you can't give more than a five, you should also expect that others cannot accurately judge your work and give you no more than a five.
You've apparently drawn a line in the sand, and are upping the ante to try to force things your way. Temper tantrums are never flattering. If you want to stay, stay. We love to have you. You are a darned fine photographer and I enjoy your work. If you want to campaign for larger sizes, great! If you want to rant, and threaten, well the door is right there and you are certainly encouraged to be some place that makes you happy. We will miss you, and wish you well in your endeavors.
As you can tell by this point, I have a very low tolerance for "If I don't get what I want, I QUIT!", messages. You are normally a very nice, reasonable person. Lets hope you can find that spot again. |
Put across far more eloquently than what I wanted to write, thank you for that.
*Edit* nevermind, I'm entirely blind before my 3rd coffee of the day. lol
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 11:29:49. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 11:42:11 AM · #19 |
If you feel so strongly, why not just enter and vote in the member challenges? After all, "Allow up to 720x720 - 531 votes "?
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 12:29:01 PM · #20 |
I agree with upping the resolution. I shoot primarily HDR. Taking a 36x24 16-bit image and "dumbing it down" to the small resolutions this site allows loses so much detail. There have been images I haven't submitted for this reason alone. I've even had comments on challenge entries where people express wanting to see a full size versions to appreciate the detail.
Many other photog/art sites have addressed this issue by allowing the upload of larger images and having the option for what size image is displayed. For instance, one site allows uploads to be large enough for full size prints to be ordered but has options for displaying the image no larger than 640px or 800px on the long dimension. This is just an option though. An image can be displayed at 1200px, 4000px etc....no limitation. It up to the photographer to determine how his/her work is displayed. Also to accommodate smaller monitors, the image first displays at a smaller size. Picking on the image shows it at full size resolution. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:25:55 PM · #21 |
Not to weigh in one way or t'other, I appreciate the OP's point. There are occasionally some pictures that I know suffer from the size restriction. Or that I THINK suffer from it. I think we are all aware of this; I think most of us test our pictures at the allowed size and make our decisions accordingly; and I think it is a limitation on certain KINDS of photos. It is a matter of interest to me just what kinds and why. On the other hand the current restrictions favour my limited pp talent and hardware.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:34:59 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by Gabriel:
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Right now, I cannot honestly give a vote over 5 because I can't judge the quality of the image as it appears on my screen. |
I am wondering what kind of screen do you have.
On an 19" flat panel, 640px is about 18.5cm (7.28" for the metric-impaired)
On a 24" flat panel, it would be 17.5cm (6.9")
On a 30" flat panel, it would be 16.2cm (6.39")
Sure, the pictures could be displayed bigger on your screen, but I don't really understand why something which is at least 16cm would be too small to judge quality.
It is a matter of compromise: sure you want to please the majority of users, but that should not exclude other users (laptops). Let's say that 70% (arbitrary number used as an explanation purpose) of users could view bigger pictures. That is indeed a majority of users, but would that be a justification to exlude the remaining 30%? |
Just a question here: What resolution are you assuming given the monitor sizes?
WSVGA, WXGA, WUXGA, WQUXGA..... you can get different resolutions at given sizes, that's all.
Also out of curiosity- how do these variable resolution setups function that a couple folks have spoken of? Must each photographer supply different resolutions or what? Or say a user specifies images have a maximum of 640, does that mean that they can't easily view anything larger?
I think one of the beautiful things about DPC is that it allows pros and complete amateurs alike to have an even playing field and to make it incredibly accessible to whoever seeks it. Perhaps that is a reason why they don't have variable?
I think (assuming variable resolution wouldn't be a pain to implement and/or use) the variable idea is great personally. Seems to satisfy everybody, but being that I don't know any of the inner complexities, can't really say how feasible it would be, not only in terms of logistics (as far as the site is concerned) but also for users.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 13:37:03. |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:39:05 PM · #23 |
| Personally I'd like to see the allowed max file size increased. The dimensions of 640 & 720 work ok. I frequently run into the file size limit and find myself changing/increasing a border (and/or reducing inside image) to try and shave off some kb's. A few times I've actually just given up and used another image that has less detail. Could be another reason why we see quite a few "stock" type simple photos in challenges. ??? |
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:39:21 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by andrewthomas:
I agree with upping the resolution. I shoot primarily HDR. Taking a 36x24 16-bit image and "dumbing it down" to the small resolutions this site allows loses so much detail. There have been images I haven't submitted for this reason alone. I've even had comments on challenge entries where people express wanting to see a full size versions to appreciate the detail.
Many other photog/art sites have addressed this issue by allowing the upload of larger images and having the option for what size image is displayed. For instance, one site allows uploads to be large enough for full size prints to be ordered but has options for displaying the image no larger than 640px or 800px on the long dimension. This is just an option though. An image can be displayed at 1200px, 4000px etc....no limitation. It up to the photographer to determine how his/her work is displayed. Also to accommodate smaller monitors, the image first displays at a smaller size. Picking on the image shows it at full size resolution. |
Letting the site resize an image isn't really a good idea. If there was a way to just say what the native size is and indicate that that is the only size allowed for display, then fine.
Message edited by author 2008-10-03 13:39:42.
|
|
|
|
10/03/2008 01:44:31 PM · #25 |
| For those with "big Screens" wanting higher res to submit and judge; how about a new category? It could be called the "Big Ego" category and judged as the other categories are, separately. |
|
