| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/17/2011 03:02:16 PM · #1 |
I want to have 1200 pixels in the horizontal direction and 800 in the vertical.
So many times I'm working on an image -- it's great! It's wonderful! What detail!
And then I shrink it to 800 in the horizontal direction.
It's too small. You just can't see what made it special in the first place. I find myself cropping it in much further than I would have, just to get the feel back. It just doesn't work with many of the images.
I want more!! Let's have 1200 in the horizontal direction!!
Let's revolt!
We're revolting!!
Ummm.... wait... that didn't come out right... |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 03:24:57 PM · #2 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I want to have 1200 pixels in the horizontal direction and 800 in the vertical.
So many times I'm working on an image -- it's great! It's wonderful! What detail!
And then I shrink it to 800 in the horizontal direction.
It's too small. You just can't see what made it special in the first place. I find myself cropping it in much further than I would have, just to get the feel back. It just doesn't work with many of the images.
I want more!! Let's have 1200 in the horizontal direction!!
Let's revolt!
We're revolting!!
Ummm.... wait... that didn't come out right... |
This is nothing new. I've always thought as a whole we were revolting. LOL.
:)
I know exactly what you mean about loosing too much detail when it's sized down. My photos should all be scoring above 8 each and every challenge...but nnnnnooooooooOOO! HEHEHEHEHEHE.
Pay no attention to that man behind the monitor. :)
Dave |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 03:30:58 PM · #3 |
I do think it is time. Technology progresses, and DPC has followed before. Let us again go down the road of greater detail and better quality.
I find myself staring at 1x, Boston.com's "The Big Picture", and a thousand other sites, wishing, hoping, praying, and yet... I've never asked because I have little hope...
But, here is my plea: We would all take more enjoyment and have more pride in our work at a higher resolution, bandwidth is excellent for almost everyone today, and megapixels are through the roof on even the cheapest cameras. Langdon, hear us and provide! :)
PS. I nearly didn't read this thread because of the title and forum choice. I would please suggest you request a change to something very direct like - "DPC: Increase image size to 1200px" and move the thread into the /Rant Web Site Suggestions forum...
What do you guys think the new size restriction should be? I'm thinking something around 500k would be really good - it would provide for just enough to make 1200px possible, but just little enough to make you consider submitting at a smaller size... It would be kinda fun to see images submitted in a range of sizes, with a concentration on the balance of size/quality, rather than what we do here today... *shrug* :)
ETA: Langdon, while you're doing this, can you please add a "No Squirrels" caveat to the new size restrictions? ;)
Oh, and while we're making suggestions, I'd also like the black line removed from around the images... I'd like to be able to add my own border, or have none at all, perhaps even playing on the interaction with the gray, it would make it more like real life, more like a real photo that I can mat however I please.
Message edited by author 2011-09-17 16:53:15. |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 03:37:07 PM · #4 |
| I agree that sizing each image down to 800 often compromises the integrity of the photo. I would love for the viewer to see what I see on my monitor, and each step taken toward this would be a victory for this website and it's contributors. |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 03:38:25 PM · #5 |
First, let me say that I too cringe at the loss of detail when resizing to fit 800px. But it's been less than 2 years since the upgrade from 720 to 800. And that aside, a *lot* of folks vote on monitors that have vertical resolutions as small as 800px. The SC will very likely not consider any proposal where the height and width limits are unequal, because it "favors" the higher-resolution orientation (landscape). For the foreseeable future, we are likely stuck with 800x800. At some point, perhaps 1000x1000 becomes workable, as monitors capable of displaying 1080p video natively become the norm. They have either 1080px or 1200px vertical resolutions.
Edit for typo :=P
Message edited by author 2011-09-17 15:39:04.
|
|
|
|
09/17/2011 03:42:58 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
First, let me say that I too cringe at the loss of detail when resizing to fit 800px. But it's been less than 2 years since the upgrade from 720 to 800. And that aside, a *lot* of folks vote on monitors that have vertical resolutions as small as 800px. The SC will very likely not consider any proposal where the height and width limits are unequal, because it "favors" the higher-resolution orientation (landscape). For the foreseeable future, we are likely stuck with 800x800. At some point, perhaps 1000x1000 becomes workable, as monitors capable of displaying 1080p video natively become the norm. They have either 1080px or 1200px vertical resolutions.
Edit for typo :=P |
Hmmmm... I'm still all for the "No Squirrels" caveat mentioned above.
ETA:
I would actually favor the landscape orientation anyway, in truth I vote with my monitor zoomed in a bit to really show off the photo (Firefox, Ctrl+), and to really show off the processing - as such, I already am unintentionally creating a preference situation where landscape images simply fit my monitor best and look the best. *shrug*.. I do often re-size if I come across a good looking portrait orientation image, but for the most part the smaller size I have to view it at is already hurting them, of course, if the photo demands portrait, so be it.
The argument buried above is that since monitors are landscape format, there is already a bias which is inherent in the system and it is not something that can be overcome by simply limiting resolution. Frankly, I favor the "disk space" argument as more valid. Besides, it could even be argued that the system favors a square cropped image now, as that is the most image area available, which may also subtly favor certain hardware already. Of course, the counter argument is that square crop rarely works well, and is therefore not overly biased..
As a reinforcing fact, some people have monitors which are in portrait orientation - those people would naturally favor the portrait orientation image... It's a wild world man, why not just use some easy logic and go with the flow.. It'll cause some fluctuation, but that would lead to innovation, fun debates about what is best, some new learning for all of us to do, and ends up being a hell of a fun experiment in psychology of image production and interpretation....
Message edited by author 2011-09-17 15:57:33. |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 04:20:20 PM · #7 |
I would like that, but ultimately its probably not going to happen because filesizes would become too much.
I do think we actually have it good here! When I was working as a Camp Photographer this summer, I uploaded pictures to a website each day, and the website automatically resized them so that the largest side was 300 or 400 (not sure what it actually was). Oh my goodness did I RAGE about that. It drove me crazy when I got fantastic details and then the parents couldn't even see them. |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 04:38:52 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
I would like that, but ultimately its probably not going to happen because filesizes would become too much.
I do think we actually have it good here! When I was working as a Camp Photographer this summer, I uploaded pictures to a website each day, and the website automatically resized them so that the largest side was 300 or 400 (not sure what it actually was). Oh my goodness did I RAGE about that. It drove me crazy when I got fantastic details and then the parents couldn't even see them. |
//www.amazon.com/1TB-43W7626-Sata-7200-3-5IN/dp/B0014JKRB8 <-- not the cheapest, but the most reliable link, I found this at $220.
I'm sure the server is mirrored, so you'd need two of them at least, maybe three per TB..
But, keep in mind, that each set, at $440 or $660 will hold about 3000 users portfolios if the portfolio was increased by 3.5x to 350 Meg. No sure how many users we have, but only the registered have a portfolio anyway, the others just get challenge space... So that's room enough for 700 personal photos or so at that size (very few people here have knocked out 400 challenges, let alone 700...).. And at $25 per year per 3000 users, assuming 50% is profit, that leaves exactly way more than enough to increase file sizes and not really hurt the business much.
Message edited by author 2011-09-17 16:39:30. |
|
|
|
09/17/2011 04:42:08 PM · #9 |
reminiscing about the debate over the increase from 640px...
 |
|
|
|
09/18/2011 02:32:05 AM · #10 |
What about a soft solution?
At the moment we can upload bigger pictures into our portfolio, viewers then have to click on the full size link to see the full size.
Increase submission size to xxxx pixels and then have a personal preference setting for either 'display challenge images at 800px' / 'display challenge images at full resolution'.
Doesn't that cover all bases?
I know some people will say that will create a differential viewing / voting situation but varying monitors, browser zoom settings and screen resolutions introduce that anyway. |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 10:41:48 PM · #11 |
| Can't wait for this feature to get implemented on DPC. A width size of 1000-1200 pixels would make a pretty significant difference on this site. |
|
|
|
01/06/2012 11:06:26 PM · #12 |
maybe its time to have a poll on this one: people's situation vis a vis monitors may have changed since the last upsize. on the other hand it is always going to be a compromise, and who knows if the centrifugal force of tech change won't reverse (before the End of Days), and it will all be the Higher the Fewer.
It is probably way too late but I think many difficulties and confusions could have been avoided if we had based all visual technology on the square... |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 12:08:08 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by tnun:
maybe its time to have a poll on this one: people's situation vis a vis monitors may have changed since the last upsize. on the other hand it is always going to be a compromise, and who knows if the centrifugal force of tech change won't reverse (before the End of Days), and it will all be the Higher the Fewer.
It is probably way too late but I think many difficulties and confusions could have been avoided if we had based all visual technology on the square... |
Yes, that way we could have gotten to the root of it sooner.
:) |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 12:23:19 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by nightpixels:
Can't wait for this feature to get implemented on DPC. A width size of 1000-1200 pixels would make a pretty significant difference on this site. |
+1 |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 01:30:44 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by paulbtlw:
What about a soft solution?
At the moment we can upload bigger pictures into our portfolio, viewers then have to click on the full size link to see the full size.
Increase submission size to xxxx pixels and then have a personal preference setting for either 'display challenge images at 800px' / 'display challenge images at full resolution'.
Doesn't that cover all bases?
I know some people will say that will create a differential viewing / voting situation but varying monitors, browser zoom settings and screen resolutions introduce that anyway. |
i like this idea. since we all have different size monitors, couldn't it be implemented that the image is uploaded at a max size and then the image gets "scaled" to whatever your webbrowser is? or maybe make voting appear in a slide slow style format?
i hate having to scroll down in my web browser for portrait style images. i'd rather the image just fit inside my window. |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 02:15:45 PM · #16 |
Some people are going to be resistant to going as large as 1200 pixels. These days only a few would not want this due to bandwidth limitations and the amount of time it would take to load the larger images.
But a larger number of people will be resistant because 1200 pixels exceeds the size of their display (most likely a laptop or tablet). This could be less of a problem if users could select the maximum viewing size of their choice under their preferences. But then you would have voters looking at images not at their native resolution as uploaded, not a good thing.
A solution could be to allow viewers to set a standard viewing size that fits images in their entirety within their display, but also add a toggle that would zoom to native resolution (scrollable in all directions) so viewers with smaller displays could still see critical things like sharpening as the artist intended them to be seen. I don't know how hard this would be to implement, but it is possible as I have seen this done on another photography site.
Some people will still be resistant to going to 1200 pixels because of image theft. I'm not that worried about this myself but totally respect that could be a concern for others. If this really is an issue for many, maybe 950 pixels would be a good size to increase to for all as it would even work on the majority of the tablets devices on the market now and fancy zooming capabilities would not need to be implemented. |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 02:59:13 PM · #17 |
| I understand both sides of the coin here and is an interesting problem that has existed for as long as I have been on DPC. I am all for bigger because I have had shots that don't seem to have the same effect once shrunken down. I think it's probably best to have everyone view at the same picture resolution so everyone is on the same page. I know there are some bandwidth concerns, but that point is becoming less of an issue everyday for a majority of people. If you were to ask me, I'd say go as large as feasibly possible. |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 04:35:09 PM · #18 |
| I'm not so concerned with pixel size as file size. Anything with too much detail has to be saved at too low of a quality to stay under 300k and still be usable. I'd rather see a push to 400/500k instead of pixel width adjustments. |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 04:40:59 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not so concerned with pixel size as file size. Anything with too much detail has to be saved at too low of a quality to stay under 300k and still be usable. I'd rather see a push to 400/500k instead of pixel width adjustments. |
I agree file size is extremely important...but it would be nice to go with more pixel size.
|
|
|
|
01/07/2012 06:38:14 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not so concerned with pixel size as file size. Anything with too much detail has to be saved at too low of a quality to stay under 300k and still be usable. I'd rather see a push to 400/500k instead of pixel width adjustments. |
Or both would be nice! :) |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 06:45:10 PM · #21 |
| I'm just mystified why website suggestions are still getting posted here rather than on the satisfaction site, which was set up for this purpose. In fact. I think there's a thread there about increasing size where all these Opinions can be added |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 06:55:22 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
couldn't it be implemented that the image is uploaded at a max size and then the image gets "scaled" to whatever your webbrowser is? |
You think the threads about wah... why didn't my image do well and then think about wah... It scaled differently from what I expected because of loss of detail in x...... Easy to do - less easy to make everyone want it :-) |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 07:06:29 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
I'm just mystified why website suggestions are still getting posted here rather than on the satisfaction site, which was set up for this purpose. In fact. I think there's a thread there about increasing size where all these Opinions can be added |
Largely due to the fact that the new website is a place to go to make that suggestion. Threads like this are a place to throw ideas around, get informed information about the effects of that suggestion so you can determine if it's something you really want and see a good thing BEFORE making that suggestion.
Kind of like political forums. Nearly every post in a political forum is in effect a vote for or against any particular candidate or proposal. You can go in thinking who or what you want is the best option, but after reading the pros and cons that others bring to the table you are more informed on things you may not have thought about initially. Once you go to the actual polling booth you have one vote so you best make it count based on actual facts that matter to you.
So these threads still give people the opportunity to gain insight into pros and cons related to the site or photography challenges that they may or may not have thought about before rushing to a suggestion box and later realizing that what they THOUGHT would be a great idea turned out to be more of a detriment in the long run. The threads continue to be a place to bounce ideas off each other before going to the other site to make a better informed suggestion.
That's the way I look at it anyway....
Dave |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 07:09:11 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by mike_311:
couldn't it be implemented that the image is uploaded at a max size and then the image gets "scaled" to whatever your webbrowser is? |
You think the threads about wah... why didn't my image do well and then think about wah... It scaled differently from what I expected because of loss of detail in x...... Easy to do - less easy to make everyone want it :-) |
Exactly Rob. That would be a bad idea because no one wants to spend a lot of time getting the detail and quality of a photo to their liking just to have to turn it over to a web-script or algorithm that is less than friendly when sizing down to fit a particular monitor size or browser. I always size my photo down to the DPC limit manually so I maintain control of the way it's going to be viewed.
Dave |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 07:18:51 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Kelli:
I'm not so concerned with pixel size as file size. Anything with too much detail has to be saved at too low of a quality to stay under 300k and still be usable. I'd rather see a push to 400/500k instead of pixel width adjustments. |
Kelli, even though you're still a brat, I agree 100 percent here. I think that increasing the file size limit to at least 500k would have more of an effect on the final quality of a photo to most people. I lose more detail in my photos due to size conversion than any other step in the process. To maintain it you're forced to either crop tighter than you would have liked, shoot scenes with far less color or details, or convert the image to B&W and remove all color information to strip down the file information in order to keep the detail data untouched.
The other thing with file resolution that I don't remember being mentioned yet is that the larger you go the easier you are making it for less than ethical people to make better enlargements for unauthorized prints of your own work. There is a point of no return, and a happy medium should be kept between all variables.
Personally, I would be more than happy with a file resolution with the longest side allowed being no larger than say 900 to 1000 pixels and the max file size bumped up to at least 500k. I don't think either one of those are excessive changes, but in combination improve a large percentage of current viewing and quality issues.
Dave |
|
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: 08/16/2025 01:12:44 AM EDT.
