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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Minimum submission size
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 35 of 35, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 06/30/2003 05:59:03 PM · #26
OK, OK, I fixed it.

I think I better get more than three hours sleep tonight. But my teddy bear is missing and I can't sleep without him =o(
 06/30/2003 06:16:13 PM · #27
I'd like to see the max height size still restricted to 640 and the file size restriction still kept at 150K, but I'd prefer to have the width size increased to 800 :)

Afterall, I assume that majority of people have 1024x768 or better as the monitor resolution, with a few going down to 800x600
But is there anyone out there that actually has 640x480 as their monitor size?
06/30/2003 06:30:26 PM · #28
Originally posted by crabappl3:
I can appreciate your taking pictures while out and about, but that still doesn't prevent you from taking a minute to find the best angle and composition before snapping. What level of shot you submit is usually equal to the effort put forth getting your composition and framing right. A snapshot feel to an image will usually score lower then one where you provide the viewer a unique perspective of the same scene.


Also, kinda duh. :-> However, where I can *stand* is very often constrained - my Men At Work shot was an absolute piece of serendipity - the cardboard barrier that keeps one from looking directly down into that construction site from the street was ajar, so I shot through the gap and managed to get figures that weren't the size of fieldmice and way over my head.

I will also note that I have never once said my pictures deserved better scores than they're getting - I'm happy if I break 4. I'm ecstatic if I break 5. I still don't think an across the board 'Oh, but nobody should be ALLOWED to submit smaller photos!!' is the proper response. If you think a particular shot isn't enhanced by being smaller, vote it down and COMMENT ON IT. I certainly have. But I've also seen 'smaller' shots that were perfectly fine, and had one of mine that was 550 in the big dimension get two nasty 'That's so tiny why did you bother submitting such crap' sorts of comment on it -- and one whose longest side was 425, nobody said boo about size.

Get over it, folks. :-> We'll all make do with the kludges we have, and we'll all learn, eventually. And if some of us submit murky tiny blurry shots until we figure out how to do better, well, our scores will reflect it, won't they?
 06/30/2003 06:31:20 PM · #29
Originally posted by ozdick:
I'd like to see the max height size still restricted to 640 and the file size restriction still kept at 150K, but I'd prefer to have the width size increased to 800 :)

Afterall, I assume that majority of people have 1024x768 or better as the monitor resolution, with a few going down to 800x600
But is there anyone out there that actually has 640x480 as their monitor size?


Yes, but some of us *do* have to upload our shots over dialup, which takes long enough as it is. :-> Besides, honestly, keeping it under 150K while still being *that* big, you're going to have to compromise on jpg compression quality, aren't you? Ick.
 06/30/2003 06:46:43 PM · #30
Greetings

I am one of the folks that posted small photos and according to the comments recieved I lost some points because of the small posting. Being a new subscriber to DPChallenge when I read the instructions for posting I sized my photos to 150 KB when I should have sized them to 640 on the long side. We live and we learn.
I do want to thank all the people that made comments, any future entries will be better because of them. After reading the comments I went back to my original photo for Country Life and applied the comments to a new and improved Country life photo, I was impressed that the picture could be so good. I subscribed to this group to learn digital photography and that I have. A big thanks to all the folks who participate.
 06/30/2003 06:49:11 PM · #31
I never accused you of saying you deserved higher scores... I am try to just suggest that this being a competition site, people are voting on the highest quality that can be achieved. My original post was stating that 1.2Mpx cams CAN achieve high quality. It's a matter of shooting withing yours and the camera's means. Are you? If so, and you are happy with your shots and scores then there is nothing further I have to say.

Originally posted by eloise:
Also, kinda duh. :-> However, where I can *stand* is very often constrained - my Men At Work shot was an absolute piece of serendipity - the cardboard barrier that keeps one from looking directly down into that construction site from the street was ajar, so I shot through the gap and managed to get figures that weren't the size of fieldmice and way over my head.

I will also note that I have never once said my pictures deserved better scores than they're getting - I'm happy if I break 4. I'm ecstatic if I break 5. I still don't think an across the board 'Oh, but nobody should be ALLOWED to submit smaller photos!!' is the proper response. If you think a particular shot isn't enhanced by being smaller, vote it down and COMMENT ON IT. I certainly have. But I've also seen 'smaller' shots that were perfectly fine, and had one of mine that was 550 in the big dimension get two nasty 'That's so tiny why did you bother submitting such crap' sorts of comment on it -- and one whose longest side was 425, nobody said boo about size.

Get over it, folks. :-> We'll all make do with the kludges we have, and we'll all learn, eventually. And if some of us submit murky tiny blurry shots until we figure out how to do better, well, our scores will reflect it, won't they?
 06/30/2003 07:12:21 PM · #32
Originally posted by eloise:

Yes, but some of us *do* have to upload our shots over dialup, which takes long enough as it is. :-> Besides, honestly, keeping it under 150K while still being *that* big, you're going to have to compromise on jpg compression quality, aren't you? Ick.


Not necessarily - I'm thinking more of the panoramic style photos.
For example, I've just saved a TIF file at 640x160 and 90% jpg compression and it's only 45K
Very little information has been lost, but the photo would look better at 800x200 - IMHO :)
 06/30/2003 07:40:04 PM · #33
Originally posted by ozdick:
I'd like to see the max height size still restricted to 640 and the file size restriction still kept at 150K, but I'd prefer to have the width size increased to 800 :)

Afterall, I assume that majority of people have 1024x768 or better as the monitor resolution, with a few going down to 800x600
But is there anyone out there that actually has 640x480 as their monitor size?


Yes, I'm afraid there are some of us out here who still have old monitors. I'm already struggling to vote on most of the pictures in portrait mode because they don't fit on my screen. So increasing the width to 800 would be a real problem for me right now.

I'm hoping to replace my monitor one of these days but the new flat screen ones are still really expensive in South Africa and I don't want to buy one of the others that is really huge and heavy.
 06/30/2003 10:37:07 PM · #34
Originally posted by OneSweetSin:
Originally posted by scab-lab:


Whats cool about PSP7, is that you can use the crop tool anyway you like to get the picture to look good. Then go to resize and put in the width of 640 and leave the height box to whatever the program selects( if doing portrait oreintation shot, you would of course put the 640 in the height box). Your image will then be resized and look exactly like the cropped version. At this time, you should run your USM to sharpen the pic. Hope that helps :)


Only works if you are only dealing with either just width or length. But, if you have a second size you have to meet say 480, that just isn't going to happen without PSP chopping more off the edges.


I still don't understand what the problem is. You only have to meet the longest side of the picture to 640 (or whatever). The other side can be anything, there isn't a required aspect ratio.
 07/01/2003 01:49:03 AM · #35
Originally posted by barahoo:
I am one of the folks that posted small photos and according to the comments recieved I lost some points because of the small posting. Being a new subscriber to DPChallenge when I read the instructions for posting I sized my photos to 150 KB when I should have sized them to 640 on the long side. We live and we learn....


Exactly... I think the rule is fine. Like others have said, if the pic is too small, then let the user know it, and most likely they will change the size next time. For what ever reason they made the small pic (didn't realize the size, or had to crop the original too much, etc.) they get the idea from the comments that most of the time a really small entry is "unacceptable" and therefore change the way they do things (ie. Learn).
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/19/2025 12:18:15 PM

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: 08/19/2025 12:18:15 PM EDT.