Portfolio Image Dimensions... - DPChallenge Forums

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/17/2006 04:31:35 PM · #1

Just curious, and I know that previously, we have beaten the size of challenge submissions to death and back, multiple times, but what if we just allowed users to have their portfolio only images larger than 640, like say 800 pixels on the longest side, and up to 250kb per image?

This change would not necessarily have to effect challenge submissions, for the time being.

The reason I bring this up is because I was on my way home thinking about it, and I often find myself editing a photo, saving a web version at say 800 pixels, then resizing again to save for dpc at 640 pixels...When I look at the two together, at times, I don't even bother uploading the one to dpc for obvious reasons.

The main point is that everyone is alotted 25 MegaBytes...what's it really matter how someone fills that 25 megs up (with obviously some limit at like 250k or 300k per image)???

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/17/2006 04:33:15 PM · #2

Even I, the quintessential "leave it alone" guy, think this is a good idea. Maybe even a 1024x768 version. This should be a portfolio users decision, not a site decision.

Challenges and portfolios I see differently.

2 cents.

Tamron SP AF 24-135mm f/3.5-5.6 AD Aspherical IF for Canon

01/17/2006 04:33:57 PM · #3

I brought this upto before, and teh SC said they were discussing it. It shouldn't matter I've I wanted to post one 25mb jpeg or several 800 pixel wide images. I paid for 25mb, and should get to useit how I see fit. :D

nards656

Canon EOS-300D Rebel

01/17/2006 04:35:01 PM · #4

I can't believe I'm publicly agreeing with you two about something... :)

That's a friendly statement, by the way.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 04:39:21 PM · #5

I believe that issue is under current consideration, but I can't really give you a timetable for either a decision, or how long it would take to code any changes.

One of the major problems arises when people post full-sized mages in the forums. If people were willing to be restricted to posting only thumbnails or text links in the threads, I think it would make it easier to allow larger images in their portfolios.

01/17/2006 04:43:03 PM · #6

Originally posted by GeneralE:

I've never understood the whole "posting big images in the forums is bad" thing. It's standard practice over @ FM.

rscorp

Nikon D70

01/17/2006 04:46:45 PM · #7

what REALLY needs to go is the 25MB. I'm paying $25 or so over at Pbase and get 300MB. Granted, this site is much more complicated, what with the challenges and voting...but 25MB is a bit cheesy. It forces you to load your images at such small file sizes that they look bad.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 04:49:53 PM · #8

Posting big images in the threads:

1: Destroys the formatting, forcing people to scroll horizontally to read every post -- not just the one with the picture.

2: Eats bandwidth/time -- especially for dialup users -- when they simply want to read the latest post, but your image from 10 posts ago has to load up first.

3: Eats bandwidth/Dollars -- DPC has to PAY to deliver all those extra pixels to every person who reads the thread every time they refresh, post, or return to it.

4: It defeats the purpose of providing you with a one-button operation for posting a preview image, and allowing only those who want to see your full-sized image to do so voluntarily, not forcing everyone interested in the thread to view it whether they want to or not.

01/17/2006 04:57:08 PM · #9

Originally posted by GeneralE:

If I link a photo in thread to my site, doesn't that use my bandwidth? That's how FM works. I put in teh image location and it shows up in the thread full sized.

And after the last poll proving that a minimal amount of users are on dial-up, why is that a consideration?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 05:13:11 PM · #10

In this thread we're talking about images hosted at DPC, in your portfolio -- those are paid for by DPC.

The main problem is forcing people to scroll left/right to read what is supposed to be a discussion thread. It's an enormous inconvenience, and (IMO) a selfish use of the forums.

What's wrong with posting a thumb and letting people who want to see it do so with one click, and letting people who just want to read the latest post do so? The place for detailed comments is on the photo's thread anyway, not buried in some forum thread ...

Nikon AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-200mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR II

01/17/2006 05:18:52 PM · #11

Easy way would be to totally restrict posting anything but a thumb in the forums. Then it wouldn't be an issue. Why have the option available if it's not a practice thats acceptable. :D

BobsterLobster

Fujifilm FinePix S3 Pro

01/17/2006 05:19:20 PM · #12

I'd pay more for a larger porfolio.

01/17/2006 05:25:38 PM · #13

Originally posted by GeneralE:

In this thread we're talking about images hosted at DPC, in your portfolio -- those are paid for by DPC.

If pbase can host 300MB for $25 and dpc can only host 25MB for the same $25, they should reconsider where they have their servers.

Furthermore, I don't think it's necessarily paid for by DPC, but instead by those individuals who pay to join the site.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 05:25:47 PM · #14

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Easy way would be to totally restrict posting anything but a thumb in the forums. Then it wouldn't be an issue. Why have the option available if it's not a practice thats acceptable. :D

That's what I was suggesting, only thumbs or text links.

But you still have to have the IMG tags available, so that you can make an externally-hosted thumbnail image act as a link to the full-sized image, in the same way a DPC-hosted thumb behaves. I do this with my pBase images: I use the URL tags to link to the image at pBase, and then in the part where you'd normally type the text, you put the IMG tags with a link to the smallest-sized JPEG at pBase.

My compromise would be to limit posting of images to 240 or 320 pixels in either dimension, but I'd actually prefer the thumb/link-only option myself -- as you point out, it's clearer and easier to enforce fairly.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

01/17/2006 05:27:46 PM · #15

Originally posted by GeneralE:

My compromise would be to limit posting of images to 240 or 320 pixels in either dimension, but I'd actually prefer the thumb/link-only option myself -- as you point out, it's clearer and easier to enforce fairly.

I don't personally see many people posting images larger than a thumbnail size anyway...no doubt it happens, but I was under the impression that it was already something frowned upon (posting a 640x640 image 150KB directly in the forums that is).

robs

Canon EOS R6 Mk II

01/17/2006 05:29:24 PM · #16

Originally posted by Brent_Ward:

Easy way would be to totally restrict posting anything but a thumb in the forums. Then it wouldn't be an issue. Why have the option available if it's not a practice thats acceptable. :D

If the posting big is the only issue (which I doubt); Could be an edit on the message entry to remove or replace with a link anything that is larger than x in file size or x/y in width/height. Would probably slow down the post for any message with images attached and it adds complexity on the code side but possible.

Edit: Too slow I see - must speed up my typing :-)

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 17:30:13.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 05:31:49 PM · #17

Originally posted by dpaull:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
In this thread we're talking about images hosted at DPC, in your portfolio -- those are paid for by DPC.

If pbase can host 300MB for $25 and dpc can only host 25MB for the same $25, they should reconsider where they have their servers.

Furthermore, I don't think it's necessarily paid for by DPC, but instead by those individuals who pay to join the site.

Let's not re-enter the discussion of DPC's internal finances, please. None of us actually know anything, plus it's none of our business.

DPC is not a hosting site, it is a contest site. Hosting images (in addition to entries) was an added feature. In addition to portfolio space, your $2/month also gets you more than twice as many challenges to enter, and a place to sell your images at a profit.

Comparing DPC to pBase is one of those apples/oranges things ... yeah they're both fruit, but beyond that they serve different functions.

01/17/2006 05:33:52 PM · #18

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Let's not re-enter the discussion of DPC's internal finances, please. None of us actually know anything, plus it's none of our business.

I'm not attempting to enter that discussion. And you're right, none of us do know anything, which is why I was surprised to see you post that bandwidth was something DPC was paying for...clearly you misrepresented yourself there.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 05:36:45 PM · #19

Originally posted by dpaull:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
My compromise would be to limit posting of images to 240 or 320 pixels in either dimension, but I'd actually prefer the thumb/link-only option myself -- as you point out, it's clearer and easier to enforce fairly.

I don't personally see many people posting images larger than a thumbnail size anyway...no doubt it happens, but I was under the impression that it was already something frowned upon (posting a 640x640 image 150KB directly in the forums that is).

The practice has decreased, but partly because SC members either ask the person to revise the link or do it themselves. I'd rather we just eliminate the need for us to intervene at all by making the practice impossible rather than just "frowned upon" -- a description which implies a degree of (unwanted, by me anyway) subjectivity.

I'm sure you wouldn't want me to post a big image of mine while hiding one of your's ... : )

01/17/2006 05:41:39 PM · #20

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dpaull:

Originally posted by GeneralE:
My compromise would be to limit posting of images to 240 or 320 pixels in either dimension, but I'd actually prefer the thumb/link-only option myself -- as you point out, it's clearer and easier to enforce fairly.

I don't personally see many people posting images larger than a thumbnail size anyway...no doubt it happens, but I was under the impression that it was already something frowned upon (posting a 640x640 image 150KB directly in the forums that is).

The practice has decreased, but partly because SC members either ask the person to revise the link or do it themselves. I'd rather we just eliminate the need for us to intervene at all by making the practice impossible rather than just "frowned upon" -- a description which implies a degree of (unwanted, by me anyway) subjectivity.

I'm sure you wouldn't want me to post a big image of mine while hiding one of your's ... : )

I say we just make it a common rule that you are not to post pictures bigger than 150 pixels in the forums. I see no problem with it, and as long as things are policed as they are currently, I think increasing the max. portfolio size from 640 pixels to 800 pixels will have little to no effect on people posting large-sized images in the forums whatsoever.

EDIT: If the 'policing' of this needs to be enforced, and some site council members feel overwhelmed with doing so, I'll gladly volunteer my time by being in charge of that specific issue in exchange for free membership along with a spot on the council.

Message edited by author 2006-01-17 17:43:21.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 05:55:23 PM · #21

Originally posted by dpaull:

I was surprised to see you post that bandwidth was something DPC was paying for...clearly you misrepresented yourself there.

According to the info at the bottom of the page, DPC is hosted by Sargasso Networks, an ISP. Every hosting agreement I've seen includes limits on bandwidth usage -- total Bytes/Billing Period -- and extra charges for overages.

Every time someone loads a thread page with a "full-sized" image, DPC's servers have to send out about another 100kb -- you do the math.

01/17/2006 06:29:07 PM · #22

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by dpaull:
I was surprised to see you post that bandwidth was something DPC was paying for...clearly you misrepresented yourself there.

According to the info at the bottom of the page, DPC is hosted by Sargasso Networks, an ISP. Every hosting agreement I've seen includes limits on bandwidth usage -- total Bytes/Billing Period -- and extra charges for overages.

Every time someone loads a thread page with a "full-sized" image, DPC's servers have to send out about another 100kb -- you do the math.

For something you don't want want to discuss, you sure do talk about it a lot.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

01/17/2006 06:31:44 PM · #23

Originally posted by dpaull:

For something you don't want want to discuss, you sure do talk about it a lot.

I'm known for that ... sorry I'll stop -- I have to go to work anyway : )