| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/21/2009 10:48:59 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by Sangiro:
I was not trying to insinuate that the issue was ignored by admin at all. It's unfortunate that you interpret it like that. |
How would you interpret the OP as anything OTHER than, "It was brought up before, the threads were locked and nothing happened?"
Originally posted by Sangiro:
You may have noticed that netbook screens tend to come in standard sizes with standard display resolutions... |
NONE of the resolutions you listed would allow a viewer to see an 800px tall image without scrolling. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 10:54:55 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Intelli:
ctrl+minus = make image smaller in your browser so you don't have to scroll. Digital Photography and Low Resolution just don't go together.. buy a bigger monitor/laptop=) |
This is a larger monitor than we had before. Can't swing the cost. Would rather have more camera equipment!
Also, the majority of images seem to be in landscape, so I probably wouldn't bother switching back and forth. Once I shrink down the screen for portrait, I'd have to switch it back for landscape. It's just not worth it. I would have the attitude that 2/3s of a photo would give me enough information to judge it and leave it at that.
(I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, I just think that this would be the MO of most people with smaller screens... )
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 10:57:36. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:00:34 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would have to scroll to see 800 pixel images. And to be completely honest, I'd probably vote without scrolling, unless I really like the image. Which is unfortunate, because I'd probably miss something. But it's really obnoxious to have to scroll on each image.
I would like to see open challenges raised to 720. I keep all my photos at 720 in the vertical, but I'd love larger sizes allowed in the horizontal. (I know that seems wrong, but I like the idea!) |
Something I don't understand properly here. I notice many people saying that they have to scroll to see n 800x600 pixel size image. ??? What is the size of your monitor then? The size of an iPhone screen? I have a small 12 inch netbook and I can see an 800x600 pixel image perfectly on there with lots of space around the edges still. No need to scroll. If I am missing something somewhere please explain it to me.
Thanks
Fred |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:16:32 AM · #29 |
it's not the 800x600 pictures that are the problem, it's the 600x800 photos.
My viewable vertical size of my monitor is 10.5" With the Firefox toolbar, and the DPC header at the top of my screen, I can see all of this image  plus its title.
With this image,  I lose the title and a small amount of the image. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:19:03 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
it's not the 800x600 pictures that are the problem, it's the 600x800 photos.
My viewable vertical size of my monitor is 10.5" With the Firefox toolbar, and the DPC header at the top of my screen, I can see all of this image plus its title.
With this image, I lose the title and a small amount of the image. |
Ah..I think I get it now. Thanx Wendy. I also googled around a bit and found this info which explains it quit nicely and I think i now get the picture.
//digitaldailydose.wordpress.com/2009/06/20/understanding-resolution/ |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:24:00 AM · #31 |
With the firefox tool bar at the top, I can only see the top 4/5th of Roz's photo. That said, I would still support a move to 800 pixels, at least in width.
Sangiro, I tried ctrl and - but all it did was make text smaller, it had no effect on the photos. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:28:53 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
With the firefox tool bar at the top, I can only see the top 4/5th of Roz's photo. That said, I would still support a move to 800 pixels, at least in width.
Sangiro, I tried ctrl and - but all it did was make text smaller, it had no effect on the photos. |
I agree about the width. In my perfect world, I'd stick with 720 height and increase the width. If that would annoy people, I'd increase it, but recommend that people stick with 720 height. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:35:28 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by SaraR:
With the firefox tool bar at the top, I can only see the top 4/5th of Roz's photo. |
Be aware that you can use the F11 key to eliminate all the toolbars from the screen; hovering the cursor where the toolbars should be will bring them up agtain so you can use them, and they'll disappear when you move the mouse away. F11 a second time will toggle them back on. I always F11 when voting even though I don't need to, because it eliminates garbage and distractions from my field of view.
R. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:36:02 AM · #34 |
| the 720 pixels can be on BOTH the vert. and horiz. sides. Not just the vert. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:41:14 AM · #35 |
1x posts these size/dimension recommendations: "File should not exceed 2MB, but have as high quality as possible. Use the "Save for web"-feature in Photoshop and adjust compression so it never exceeds 2MB but is as high as possible.
We recommend 900-950 pixels for landscape format and 700-750 pixels height for portrait format".
Note the dimensional difference for portrait vs. landscape formats. 950 pixels is a beautiful size for web display, and, in my opinion, the absolute minimum for wide-screen (16:9/Leica standard) and panoramic images. DPC pages, however, load significantly faster than 1x. Whether or not this is entirely due to image size, I don't know. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:46:51 AM · #36 |
The internet did not stop progressing because they were worried that dialup users would be really slow and unable to handle the new functionality. Clearly, they switched to digital tv signals without worry that people with only rabbits ears couldn't watch anymore.
Progress in technology does not stop because outdated people complain that their 10 year old technologies won't work anymore.
increase the size, people will deal with it, go to some used store and buy a better monitor for 20 bucks
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 11:47:51. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 11:56:01 AM · #37 |
At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is blindingly obvious.
800x720.
Any objections to that? |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 12:00:46 PM · #38 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I would love to go to 800 and add a provision to water mark, without the water mark increasing the size makes them that much more likely to be stolen. As far as scrolling goes I do that now on some of the portrait configured images. |
I would like the larger size... Not so good with the water mark idea... When I am voting on a image, the last thing I want is to deal with the distraction of a water mark. Now maybe it is because I don't have much that I have done, if anything, worth stealing. (This will save someone the time of going to my portfolio to discover I am a crappy photographer.) However, if you have an image that you want to sell, I'd recommend not entering it in a challenge.
I would recommend that the site go with the idea of making right-clicking the images to save them, disallowed. There are plenty of sites, that if you right-click on an image or a link, the "save" is grayed out. How hard it is, I don't know. But a fair number of sites do it. But then I believe this has been suggested before also. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 12:01:50 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
The internet did not stop progressing because they were worried that dialup users would be really slow and unable to handle the new functionality. Clearly, they switched to digital tv signals without worry that people with only rabbits ears couldn't watch anymore.
Progress in technology does not stop because outdated people complain that their 10 year old technologies won't work anymore.
increase the size, people will deal with it, go to some used store and buy a better monitor for 20 bucks |
Realistically, since there is still a large number of users with the smaller monitors, I doubt they're going to all switch over to larger monitors because of DPC. If you want to take the chance of people voting on 3/4s of your photograph, I guess that's your choice. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 12:07:08 PM · #40 |
Originally posted by marbo:
At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is blindingly obvious.
800x720.
Any objections to that? |
720 x 720 is your best bet. Unequal dimensions will not be implemented due to the perceived disadvantage of a smaller portrait image competing against a larger landscape. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 12:10:27 PM · #41 |
As someone who's been...
- An advocate of larger image sizes here since at least 2003
- Been involved with at least two rounds of Site Council discussion on the matter
...I'd like to put in my two cents. FWIW, I'm no longer involved with SC, so the following is purely my personal view.
When I see beautiful images elsewhere in the range of 900 to 1000px wide, it never fails to make me think that it would be outstanding to have the ability to submit to challenges at these resolutions here at DPC. I'm often *very* frustrated that my images lose the beauty of well-resolved fine detail when reduced to 720px (or heaven forbid 640px). It would be a royal biatch to vote on vertical images of that size from most laptop screens, but there is no real reason that an asymmetric size limit could not be adopted, perhaps 900px wide by 720px high. The *only* argument against this that holds any small amount of water is the idea that an asymmetric limit would lead to a preference for landscape-oriented images. I'd submit that landscape images are prevalent without an asymmetric size limit. The simple fact of life is that screens are not square, and (mostly) not used in portrait orientation for photographic work. The bandwidth argument, in this day and age, holds no water at all. In fact we have good data to show that the percentage of users connecting over slow connections is reduce by half approximately every two years, and that should currently be below 2%. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 12:38:49 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
As someone who's been...
- An advocate of larger image sizes here since at least 2003
- Been involved with at least two rounds of Site Council discussion on the matter
...I'd like to put in my two cents. FWIW, I'm no longer involved with SC, so the following is purely my personal view.
When I see beautiful images elsewhere in the range of 900 to 1000px wide, it never fails to make me think that it would be outstanding to have the ability to submit to challenges at these resolutions here at DPC. I'm often *very* frustrated that my images lose the beauty of well-resolved fine detail when reduced to 720px (or heaven forbid 640px). It would be a royal biatch to vote on vertical images of that size from most laptop screens, but there is no real reason that an asymmetric size limit could not be adopted, perhaps 900px wide by 720px high. The *only* argument against this that holds any small amount of water is the idea that an asymmetric limit would lead to a preference for landscape-oriented images. I'd submit that landscape images are prevalent without an asymmetric size limit. The simple fact of life is that screens are not square, and (mostly) not used in portrait orientation for photographic work. The bandwidth argument, in this day and age, holds no water at all. In fact we have good data to show that the percentage of users connecting over slow connections is reduce by half approximately every two years, and that should currently be below 2%. |
Totally agree with you Fritz.
There are no more excuses left anymore for not having wider images. The rest of the internet has moved on but DPC seems to have been chiseled out of stone.
It`s sad but DPC is stagnant and Dying :( |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 12:56:34 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by marbo:
At the risk of repeating myself, the answer is blindingly obvious.
800x720.
Any objections to that? |
720 x 720 is your best bet. Unequal dimensions will not be implemented due to the perceived disadvantage of a smaller portrait image competing against a larger landscape. |
But surely that is a choice the entrant makes? |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 01:15:14 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
The internet did not stop progressing because they were worried that dialup users would be really slow and unable to handle the new functionality. Clearly, they switched to digital tv signals without worry that people with only rabbits ears couldn't watch anymore.
Progress in technology does not stop because outdated people complain that their 10 year old technologies won't work anymore.
increase the size, people will deal with it, go to some used store and buy a better monitor for 20 bucks |
Realistically, since there is still a large number of users with the smaller monitors, I doubt they're going to all switch over to larger monitors because of DPC. If you want to take the chance of people voting on 3/4s of your photograph, I guess that's your choice. |
sorry, you can't just say 'there is still a large number of users'. There are no facts to back that up, and anything you poll will still be skewed by participants. The fact remains that the issue has been outdated for at least 4+ years, regardless of who or who doesnt have the right monitor size.
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 13:15:44. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 01:28:20 PM · #45 |
I'll chime in here to say I'm all in favor of asymmetric size limits. I agree that 720-750 is a desirable maximum for vertical dimension, but I see no reason whatever for not having a 900-1000 max on horizontal dimension. I think the suggestion that this would somehow "favor" horizontal images over vertical is a red herring; we already see way more horizontal images anyway... As Fritz said...
R. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 01:33:59 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'll chime in here to say I'm all in favor of asymmetric size limits. I agree that 720-750 is a desirable maximum for vertical dimension, but I see no reason whatever for not having a 900-1000 max on horizontal dimension. I think the suggestion that this would somehow "favor" horizontal images over vertical is a red herring; we already see way more horizontal images anyway... As Fritz said...
R. |
I would have no problem with asymmetric size limits either. In fact, if it was increased to 800x800, I would still limit my vertical size to 720-750 because I'd want people with smaller monitors to see the entire image. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 01:35:02 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I'll chime in here to say I'm all in favor of asymmetric size limits. I agree that 720-750 is a desirable maximum for vertical dimension, but I see no reason whatever for not having a 900-1000 max on horizontal dimension. I think the suggestion that this would somehow "favor" horizontal images over vertical is a red herring; we already see way more horizontal images anyway... As Fritz said...
R. |
But, just because it's already skewed in favor of one is a reason to make it even EASIER to skew it? As a person that highly favors portrait orientation (sure, I'm an eccentric), I hate this idea. Hate it to the very core of my being. I don't understand, nor agree with, any reasoning that says, "Well, since it is already this way, let's just make it easier to keep it this way!" It's flawed thinking.
|
|
|
|
08/21/2009 02:31:11 PM · #48 |
Could this not be solved by having a viewing size limit in our profile preferences - i.e. show images at full resolution / show rescaled images at 720px max; we already have something similar, if a high resolution image is uploaded into the portfolio, it can be viewed at full resolution.
That way we could submit at higher sizes without it going beyond screen size of even the smallest monitor / resolution.
All this talk about looking out for the interests of users with smaller, lower resolution monitors but do spare a thought for people with large, high resolution monitors; looking at images, including your own prior to submission, is less than ideal at 720px and awful at 640px. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 02:39:17 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
Could this not be solved by having a viewing size limit in our profile preferences - i.e. show images at full resolution / show rescaled images at 720px max; we already have something similar, if a high resolution image is uploaded into the portfolio, it can be viewed at full resolution.
That way we could submit at higher sizes without it going beyond screen size of even the smallest monitor / resolution. |
This idea would solve the scrolling issue, but there is a very real problem with this approach, specifically that the site would be choosing how to resize the images. Some voters would be voting on a full-size image, while others would be voting on a down-sampled image. My experience with site-based down-sampling is not at all positive.
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
All this talk about looking out for the interests of users with smaller, lower resolution monitors but do spare a thought for people with large, high resolution monitors; looking at images, including your own prior to submission, is less than ideal at 720px and awful at 640px. |
I agree completely. I'd go as far as to say that most photographers have invested in higher-resolution monitors. While I do access the site from my work laptop at 1280x800, I also have a second monitor attached at 1680x1050. At home I'm at even higher resolution, and I have not spent a great deal of money on monitors. In fact the one I use at home is a $250 USD monitor!
Edit for typo
Message edited by author 2009-08-21 14:57:32. |
|
|
|
08/21/2009 02:47:16 PM · #50 |
How about we have Slippy wear a pink tutu and Prance around in the middle of downtown?
That to me sounds like a cool idea. |
|
