| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/13/2006 10:56:22 AM · #1 |
I can't stand it. The majority of users just voted that they would like an increase in the 640pixel limit, but 150k is not enough for what we have now. There are those of us who like deep focus highly detailed images, but itâs virtually impossible to get decent images with this restriction. My jump entry, which I wouldnât have bothered to enter except for not wanting to let team Olympians down, suffers greatly from compression effects. The original (I think) looks pretty good, but I was forced to use a 57 quality setting with PSâs save for web (ironic since its currently getting about a 5.7).
Look at most of the high scorers here and they have one thing in common, that they are easily compressible. Either they have huge expanses of similar colors or they have been neat-imaged to death. Personally I hate neat image, it makes the image look as though you smeared Vaseline on it. But my point is that the 150k limit is limiting photographic styles. I doubt many members of the great f64 club would have scored well here if they were still around. I could actually care less about scores, but i would like my images to look as good as possible.
If it were truly a bandwidth issue then why are portfolios not limited to the 150k limit? Iâd gladly give up my 25mb of space for say a 250k limit.
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 11:04:11 AM · #2 |
Can you post a higher quality version in your portfolio so we can see the difference?
Oops, after the challenge ends, that is.
Message edited by author 2006-04-13 11:04:26. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 11:08:49 AM · #3 |
Yes. This medium does not favor detail. Since my shooting preference is for images with a great deal of detail I struggle with it all the time.
I also struggle with it at my local photo club where I have to enter prints. Because I have a small printer Iâm limited to entering 8 x 10âs. So often after the judging someone will come up and say how much better my image looks âclose upâ while it suffered in the voting. The point is we must select images for the medium in which weâre publishing. It is not clear to me that simply increasing the kb limit on challenge entries and adding pixels will dramatically change that. (Of course, this has all been discussed ad nauseum before.)
|
|
|
|
04/13/2006 11:13:25 AM · #4 |
I won't agree or disagree, but I will say that this doesn't really come up too often. This site is very good at recognizing it's own shortcomings and adjusting ... but I don't think this issue has been a problem here.
A 57 quality level is way low, though.
Sorry to here you're having problems. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 11:13:26 AM · #5 |
| I thought the portfolios did allow over 150kb? |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 11:16:49 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I thought the portfolios did allow over 150kb? |
They do, that was his point I think. Why have such large portfolios (25MB) if storage is an issue. Actually, he said bandwidth, which is a seperate item. |
|
|
|
04/13/2006 11:17:56 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by mk:
Can you post a higher quality version in your portfolio so we can see the difference?
Oops, after the challenge ends, that is. |
Sure, I will.
Message edited by author 2006-04-13 11:18:18. |
|
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: 08/28/2025 05:40:29 PM EDT.
