DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> 800 pixels photos in Members Challenges.
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 201 - 225 of 319, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 03/06/2006 10:40:09 PM · #201
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... Let's bring DPC out of the dark ages.

I think this would be the dark ages, photographically-speaking : )
 03/06/2006 10:59:31 PM · #202
Here's a thought - though I'd rather keep the 640 limit on challenge photos, an increase to 800 for portfolio photos would be cool.
 03/06/2006 11:01:13 PM · #203
I'm in...give me 800 or give me death...well maybe not that into it. Like others have stated why not do it for one challenge to test the waters, if the majority likes the bigger swimming pool then lets keep it.
03/06/2006 11:05:27 PM · #204
they should keep camera bodies tiny because I'm lazy to scroll my fingers across to reach the buttons... LOL

ok seriously, we want 800!
Cant wait to see the poll results on the 17th

Message edited by author 2006-03-06 23:06:07.
 03/06/2006 11:14:33 PM · #205
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Glad this is revived and with a poll. It's hard to reduce a landscape to 640 and get good results. There's so much loss of detail.


Might we consider a greater image width but maintain the present 640 pixel height? How about 960 X 640 to accomodate wider views and 640 height to keep the image entirely onscreen viewable.
 03/06/2006 11:29:37 PM · #206
you know I would prefer a bigger file size than a bigger picture. When Im saving it I have to reduce my quality to fit it under 150.
 03/06/2006 11:39:43 PM · #207
Originally posted by ElGordo:
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Glad this is revived and with a poll. It's hard to reduce a landscape to 640 and get good results. There's so much loss of detail.


Might we consider a greater image width but maintain the present 640 pixel height? How about 960 X 640 to accomodate wider views and 640 height to keep the image entirely onscreen viewable.


I'll take that over no change! Even 800 wide by 640 high.

But I do like to take landscapes in portrait mode as well, so it wouldn't help there. I don't know why we can't click to see the larger view if people are afraid of needing to scroll. Or it could be in your preferences: Show: 640 800 x. If you select 640, you get a resized image that can be clicked to enlarge.

03/06/2006 11:42:14 PM · #208
I don't think any of us "big screeners" want to take away the experience of the smaller users. So ideally you'd have both available set in preferences.

I think it's important to find out how much of an expense increase having both 640 and 800 sizes available would add to what we have now. If it's not a huge difference why not raise the membership rate to cover the difference. If that isn't cool (cheapo's) what about raising the membership price for those who choose to view in 800? I know I'd be willing to pay an extra 5 bucks a year to see clearly.
 03/07/2006 12:05:35 AM · #209
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Or it could be in your preferences: Show: 640 800 x. If you select 640, you get a resized image that can be clicked to enlarge.

Automatic resizing introduces all kinds of other problems, like a lack of control by the photographer over the appearance/quality of the final product -- artifacts and de-sharpening are likely to show up with either up- or down-sizing images.
 03/07/2006 12:10:56 AM · #210
I'm against:
- auto resizing by the site

I'm voting for:
- 800 pixels
- auto watermark (for those who fear theft)
 03/07/2006 12:25:42 AM · #211
Ugh. Auto watermarks would be terrible, ruin a lot of perfectly good photos.

If you're worried about theft, the internet is not the place for you to share your work. Especially not a website that's owned by someone other than yourself.
 03/07/2006 12:46:21 AM · #212
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Ugh. Auto watermarks would be terrible, ruin a lot of perfectly good photos.

If you're worried about theft, the internet is not the place for you to share your work. Especially not a website that's owned by someone other than yourself.


I dont like watermarks too :)
but just a suggestion if THAT's what it takes to get 800x800 implemented. Coz I wan 800x800!
 03/07/2006 01:14:21 AM · #213
Originally posted by Cooz:
Yeah, but EVERYONE is squeezing detail into 640...I think your image is great at both resolutions...and, yeah, the higher resolution one looks better, but EVERYONE is working within the same boundries and if your image is a 10th place entry at 640, against 640 images, it would be a 10th place entry at 800...

I think that's due to the way people vote here, and that is with their heart first and eye second...but that isn't going to change, so changing the resolution won't change someone's voting...

Take a look thru the thumbnail page for any of the challenges. Some of the images make really striking thumbs, some don't. Some images just scale better than others.

Images with large objects and little fine detail are going to look much better at smaller sizes than those with fine detail and no large objects. Sure it has an affect on scores, but that's not really the issue I see. By limiting the image to such a small size, there is a cap on how much attention has to be given to the details of the shot.

Staying at 640 is great for those just starting out, as it allows them to concentrate on basic form and composition. But for the more advanced the difference between a good image and great one is all in the details. I say give those who strive for the highest quality in their work a chance to show their work at its best -- even if another tier of membership has to be made to do it.

David
 03/07/2006 01:34:56 AM · #214
300x 300 and with every membership you get a magnifying glass.
 03/07/2006 01:36:03 AM · #215
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
... Let's bring DPC out of the dark ages.

I think this would be the dark ages, photographically-speaking : )


Yeah, I've seen similar things where people have used a plot of grass too.


03/07/2006 01:36:22 AM · #216


would have liked to see more details on this image.
 03/07/2006 01:49:18 AM · #217
What is the big deal? Increase size so that people can rob images more easily? Is that it;)

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 03:01:53.
 03/07/2006 02:07:24 AM · #218
I've been experimenting with using javascript to resize images based on the pixel space available on the screen. I am storing images at max dimension of 600px and presenting them based on the space available.
It seems to work (although occasionally there is artifacting when the image is reduced). Click here for my sample screen. Compare this to the current site here. The images on the new site are actually half the file size (80% quality) of those on the original site; and yet they look much better.

I believe the a larger resolution could easily be made to work for everyone on DPC. Play around with your window size to gauge the impact.

Note: Feedback on the new site welcome. Please PM me.

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 02:12:00.
 03/07/2006 02:12:37 AM · #219
I agree with all the arguments for the larger images, especially the details business - i've always used 800 as a max width in my gallery - but for dpc, there is one major issue that cannot be overcome by wishful thinking alone: being forced to scroll. 800 is not too wide for a horizontal dimension, but anything above 640 is too tall for a 1024x768 screen. The only result this sort of change would have would be to segregate your viewers into those who can see your whole image, and those who are forced to scroll.

It's no use going on about how great your personal editing monitor is, either - here at home i have a five-monitor setup on my main workstation, each 21" at 1600x1200. I'm not short of pixels but i would never vote for an increase from 640, because it's frustrating enough having to struggle with toolbars and status bars in browsers when i view dpc elsewhere - which is 75% of the time.

If this change passes, then until the majority of library computers, office computers, your friends' budget desktops, light wide-screen laptops etc start giving you a vertical res of at least 200 pixels more than the max vertical dimension of dpc images, this will remain a tangible problem for a sizeable portion of users. And this isn't likely to happen, because of the way the web and applications generally are laid out has become standardised to look best between 72dpi and 100dpi - and smaller display devices will always be with us, especially as portable computers become more commonplace than desktop computers.
 03/07/2006 03:12:05 AM · #220
Originally posted by Leok:


Also outside of North America dialup is relatively common and the larger filesizes needed to make 800x800 work would be a headache.


Welcome to the real world, broadband is much more common outside the US than inside. If you bothered to read the original suggestion you would see that the file size is unchanged at 150k. So no change for dailup users.

I'd welcome a way to have submissions at any size and resize them dynamically. Like flickr and others have.

I've lost count of the number of times I've just not bothered to enter because it would be no point showing the picture at the stamp size allowed here.

Bigger *is* better!

HÃ¥kon
 03/07/2006 03:15:03 AM · #221
Originally posted by ergates:
Bigger *is* better!


lol makes people wonder :p
 03/07/2006 03:39:39 AM · #222
Any chance of a "Test Page" to see how it would look on our monitors?

My votes for bigger...(800)
 03/07/2006 03:42:02 AM · #223
Originally posted by ergates:
If you bothered to read the original suggestion you would see that the file size is unchanged at 150k. So no change for dailup users.

I'd welcome a way to have submissions at any size and resize them dynamically. Like flickr and others have.

I've lost count of the number of times I've just not bothered to enter because it would be no point showing the picture at the stamp size allowed here.


I'd rather have control over sharpening my photo at the size it's displayed, even if it is a "stamp size", rather than leaving it to some dumb perl script to slaughter my photo. Also 150k is quite a tight stretch to avoid artefacts in a 640x640 image already... to fit an 800x800 image in that space would require noticeable sacrifice in image quality, and submitting an image smaller than the maximum dimensions would just attract this kind of naive "bigger is better" comments during voting that place size over quality.
 03/07/2006 03:44:48 AM · #224
I`m all for 800x800, it gives more scope for certain images.
There is also nothing to stop anyone sticking to 640x640 if they wish.

My square crop challenge entry needs scrolling down at 640px but have had no complaints yet and scoring 6.2 :)

Message edited by author 2006-03-07 03:56:10.
 03/07/2006 05:00:15 AM · #225
I think a lot of people who vote at work on 1024x768 screens will stop voting if the size is increased without giving the option to view at a lower res.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 06/23/2025 08:50:05 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 06/23/2025 08:50:05 AM EDT.