| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/07/2012 07:41:31 PM · #26 |
yes on prop 1200!!!!
Side Note:
Is the 800 and 300kb limit to help mitigate stolen images being used for too many things? IE a stolen low res 800 pixel image can be used online, but not really in print.. is that the only reason? Or I assume it also coincided with the average screen resolution at the time. Either way... 1200 sounds good to me, lez do dis.
Message edited by author 2012-01-07 19:43:29. |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 09:04:06 PM · #27 |
The recurring request for more pixels or file size always has me wondering how  JustFred seems to have overcome these restrictions in his work. I cannot see where there is a problem with presenting detail in his images:
  
I just wish I knew how he does it! |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 09:26:35 PM · #28 |
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 :-) |
I don't know if anyone read what I wrote previously but it seems it would address your VERY VALID concerns so I will say it again :) ...
...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. |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 09:30:38 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Brent_S:
... I have seen this done on another photography site. |
Interesting. Can you link me there? |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 09:55:18 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by Brent_S:
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 :-) |
I don't know if anyone read what I wrote previously but it seems it would address your VERY VALID concerns so I will say it again :) ...
...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. |
Correct, it's been possible...for years. The issue that arises because in a perfect world every single voter would zoom in and actually see the photo the way it was meant to be seen ie. full of detail, correct sharpness etc. However, we don't live in a perfect work and as long as the whole image fits on someone's smaller display I would venture to say that the vast majority of those viewers would STILL vote on the image that fits nicely on their display and never bother to zoom in with the exception of the small percentage of photos that interest them most. That means we would still be at the mercy of some algorithm that often tend to leave sizing artifacts, make photos appear over sharpened compared to the original etc. That's not fair to the photographer...at all, and it's a handicap during voting. I've frequented hundreds of photography photo sites online as well to know it happens more times than not. The result will end up being that most photographers would end up submitting photos far below the maximum size to cater to the smallest screens so downsizing would not be needed under any circumstance. Catering to the small percentage of people with screen resolutions that have been left behind by the industry and web standards is not my idea of taking advantage of recent technology.
Dave |
|
|
|
01/07/2012 11:34:48 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by C_Steve_G:
Originally posted by Brent_S:
... I have seen this done on another photography site. |
Interesting. Can you link me there? |
One site I know at least used to do this (haven't been active there for quite a while) is pixelpeep.com. If it still works that way you would need to be registered I think in order to set your scaling preferences.
However, Dave made some very good points after your message. Even though DPC could be setup to toggle to native resolution many voters on smaller screens might not bother to do so. And as Dave said, this would not be fair to the artists to have their images voted on without being seen as intended.
I'm more inclined to think a resolution that would work for the vast majority of users like 950 pixels maximum (with no scaling) might be best for now. With a file size increase as well to maybe 500kb.
If any fancy function were implemented at all, maybe it should just be something that forces the voters on small screens to at least scroll through the entire image before they can vote on the image. Or possibly all viewing should be done at native resolution but provide a click and hold toggle for small screened viewers to "temporarily" scale down the image to see it in its entirety.
|
|
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 10:36:35 PM EDT.
