| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/08/2005 10:15:55 AM · #1 |
I want to put forth a motion that the maximum submission dimensions be increased from 640 pixels in this challenge. At this size, creating a horizontal composite of three shots is basically unviewable, thus extremely limiting ourselves to triptychs in portrait orientation.
Thanks,
Lee
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 10:17:50 AM · #2 |
That's true if you feel the images need to be side by side horizontally. This may be the traditional way of doing them but definitely not the only way.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 10:21:47 AM · #3 |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 10:24:46 AM · #4 |
I would also like to see larger dimensions for this one. Either way you orient your shots, it'll still be hard to see 3 clearly at the current size.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 10:30:54 AM · #5 |
I was thinking this would have been a good challenge to experiment with 800 wide by 640 high. Is it too late?
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 10:43:52 AM · #6 |
Agree! 800x800 for this challenge would be good.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 11:12:39 AM · #7 |
| beggers can't be choosers |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 11:32:45 AM · #8 |
This one came out pretty good with the current system parameters...
...not mine, belongs to BradP. ;^)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 11:52:13 AM · #9 |
| 800px along the longest side would be a welcome exception for this challenge. I don't think the quality of the image will be reduced at all if the file size remains at 150kb. |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:00:29 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
This one came out pretty good with the current system parameters...
|
This one's almost as good as BradP's...
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:12:13 PM · #11 |
As much as I would like to see a wider maximum on this one, I have another winner at our conventional 640.
(seems this challenge has me in the cross-hairs) |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:12:51 PM · #12 |
LOL! I saw a kid (looked about 7) doing that EXACT same thing last night at an event for the kids. Out came the finger, looked at it, then in the mouth it went. ;^) Yuck.
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
This one's almost as good as BradP's...
|
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:13:21 PM · #13 |
| C'mon folks, where's your respect for Robert's rules? Tranquil has put a motion on the table. Do I hear a second? |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:14:19 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:15:14 PM · #15 |
OK, motion made, seconded. Further discussion?
All in favor say (type)
"eye," "aye," or "I" |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:16:14 PM · #16 |
No thanks. Now, where's that can of worms I saw earlier?
Originally posted by strangeghost:
C'mon folks, where's your respect for Robert's rules? Tranquil has put a motion on the table. Do I hear a second? |
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:20:01 PM · #17 |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:24:19 PM · #18 |
| i fifteenth that motion :) |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:31:23 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
No thanks. Now, where's that can of worms I saw earlier?
Originally posted by strangeghost:
C'mon folks, where's your respect for Robert's rules? Tranquil has put a motion on the table. Do I hear a second? |
|
You'll have to ask Ken.
800w x 640h I think would be doable. 800 high would require some viewers to scroll to see the entire image even in full screen mode. Not exactly the best way to view images.
If file size could be kept at 150k then the dialup users wouldn't be inconvenienced any more than they are now.
Message edited by author 2005-11-08 12:31:49.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:45:04 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by strangeghost:
OK, motion made, seconded. Further discussion?
All in favor say (type)
"eye," "aye," or "I" |
Or just put an  in here |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:50:14 PM · #21 |
Unlike extra rules (that are mostly dealing with how DQ requests are processed), increasing the allowed image size is not something that is challenge-related. I believe that it is coded into the web site and cannot be (easily) applied only to the specific challenge.
This challenge may have triggered the ongoing desire to increase the image size, but on the other hand, it is too late now as there are already submissions to this challenge.
That said, I believe that 640 max works fine for most photos. The ones that are hurting are panoramas and diptych/tryptych style photos, where one side gets squished beyond recognition because of the aspect ratio.
I'm sure that there will be the time to increase the size, but it is not this challenge. |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 12:53:49 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by BradP:
As much as I would like to see a wider maximum on this one, I have another winner at our conventional 640.
(seems this challenge has me in the cross-hairs) |
...no false modesty there, eh Brad? ;-) OTH, you're right: we're gunnin' for ya, buddy!! :-)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 02:31:17 PM · #23 |
I am having the same trouble. At 640, and mine are side by side and not "long" shots like the landscape one portrayed, you can't make out any details of the photos within. It almost looks blahhh.
Can someone tell me how to do this and have it look nice to the viewer? Mine is three separate photos, not one that was turned into a triptych. So, with no frame readily available, I am having to cut and paste new layers into a background to make the frame. After resizing the thing, it looks underdone. The images don't distort, but it is really too small to get a side by side comparison. SO I need some pointers !!!!
Rose
|
|
|
|
11/08/2005 05:34:16 PM · #24 |
|
|
|
11/08/2005 05:38:21 PM · #25 |
Rose,
the same rule that applies to adding borders (see the tutorials on it) applies here. Do not add separators before resizing! Do it all, resize, sharpen/neat image or whatever you do first, then as a last step add framing(s).
Message edited by author 2005-11-08 17:38:39. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/30/2025 10:28:22 AM EDT.
in here
