| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/27/2012 04:52:49 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Langdon should do a simple yes/no vote on a new 1000px maximum width. |
That would make sense and take all the sport out of it! LOL!!!
|
|
|
|
04/27/2012 05:02:05 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by posthumous:
Langdon should do a simple yes/no vote on a new 1000px maximum width. |
Totally agree, put it to the people. And if he can just add a "hold down to zoom out button" to the UI it would relieve the concern some people have about the need to scroll with larger images.
I have compassion for those people concerned about image theft with larger image sizes. But the reality is that an extra 200 pixels or so is not going to make images all that much more enticing to thieves, it just isn't. |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 05:02:53 PM · #53 |
| I could only hope someone would steal my photos. At least I could get paid for their use. |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 09:22:00 PM · #54 |
The decision should be mine.
Message edited by author 2012-04-27 21:22:11.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2012 09:22:45 PM · #55 |
stoopid message-edited messages, always ruining my flow...
|
|
|
|
04/27/2012 09:47:59 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
The point is, a person that doesn't feel comfortable putting an image out there at 1000 and does as you suggest (entering it at the prior maximum), will not have their entry judged the same as the larger ones and the score will reflect it.
So again, I'll repeat, if you would prefer not to see image limits change from the current 800 don't settle for assurances that 800 will still be "okay" in a 1000 limit environment. |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
So everyone else who isn't staying up nights worrying about 'Net piracy gets penalized? |
I'm telling anyone that would prefer to stay at 800 to not accept the "you can still submit a smaller image" argument. If you feel strongly about staying with 800 then don't be swayed.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I just don't get it. If you're that concerned with proceeds from images, then what are you doing wasting your time here rather than developing your commercial portfolio? |
I don't really care either way that much, but I would prefer to stay with 800. There's the whole screen real estate issue, scrolling to see the entire image (hard to vote or judge a photo if you can't see the entire thing at one time). As far as the "wasting your time here" argument I'll just say bug off. How I spend my time is no concern of yours - ever.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Nobody's grabbing hi-res, large printable image files from the challenges here......I don't print off anything less than a 5 or 6MB file, and most of what I print, I go bigger yet than that. I'm by no means a pro, I don't do much in high end fine art, or weddings. The whole piracy argument for challenge entries is just ridiculous. |
For high end sales I agree, however, stock photo sites will accept smaller images - GASP! Even down to 800 pixels I've found. Let's roll it back to 640 - quick!!!
First stock photo site I went to was BigStockPhoto and their acceptance threshold is: "Images must be at least 800 pixels high or wide - but bigger photos sell better."
edit - typo.
Message edited by author 2012-04-27 21:48:42. |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 10:06:52 PM · #57 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't really care either way that much, but I would prefer to stay with 800. There's the whole screen real estate issue, scrolling to see the entire image (hard to vote or judge a photo if you can't see the entire thing at one time)...
|
Again, the need to scroll for larger images would be a complete non-concern with a simple click and hold to zoom out button added to the user interface. This has been done on other websites and it can easily be done at DPC. Everybody would have the ability to see the entire image at once, and everybody would be viewing the image at the resolution the artist submitted it with except when they are holding down that simple button. Relax! :)
ETA: This "click to zoom out button" should be a considered enhancement to the user interface even if allowable resolutions are not increased. Some people are having to scroll even at 800 pixels.
Message edited by author 2012-04-27 22:18:55. |
|
|
|
04/27/2012 10:38:00 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
So again, I'll repeat, if you would prefer not to see image limits change from the current 800 don't settle for assurances that 800 will still be "okay" in a 1000 limit environment. |
That's fine.....if you want the image size to stay that way because of piracy fears, though, that's really then up to the individual as to whether they put anything up on the web at all. It truly doesn't have any bearing on what this site does.
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
I just don't get it. If you're that concerned with proceeds from images, then what are you doing wasting your time here rather than developing your commercial portfolio? |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I don't really care either way that much, but I would prefer to stay with 800. There's the whole screen real estate issue, scrolling to see the entire image (hard to vote or judge a photo if you can't see the entire thing at one time). |
The image size limits being discussed are no issue whatsoever for current monitors. And don't hand me the whole "DPC is going to force me to upgrade my equipment." argument, either. My 25" 1080HD/LED monitor cost me less (New) than the refurb NEC monitor I had ten years ago. You can buy decent monitors pretty much everywhere for less than $200. If you're editing images for the best quality you can, why try to do so on a junk monitor?
Originally posted by glad2badad:
As far as the "wasting your time here" argument I'll just say bug off. How I spend my time is no concern of yours - ever. |
Okay....first of all, the question was general; I truly don'y give a rat's ass what YOU do with your time, Barry, my point was that if commercial sales is where the interests lie, then it seems kind of pointless to be on this site.
Originally posted by glad2badad:
For high end sales I agree, however, stock photo sites will accept smaller images - GASP! Even down to 800 pixels I've found. Let's roll it back to 640 - quick!!!
First stock photo site I went to was BigStockPhoto and their acceptance threshold is: "Images must be at least 800 pixels high or wide - but bigger photos sell better." |
So......this whole piracy issue is about the few pennies that *might* be made from a stock site??????
Oh, wow! That's certainly a monumental concern. That's even more of a reason not to put images up ANYWHERE other than where you're trying to create sales.
|
|
|
|
04/27/2012 10:40:06 PM · #59 |
| People! DPC has a crisis brewing. The Nik / Topaz Bubble has just about run its course and is about to burst. How much longer will those two click processing magic fancy noobie voters? We can't risk our scores dropping! So unless there's a new envy-producing-ribbon-creating technology that hits shelves soon we may face the problem of the challenge results not showing a discernible difference from that of our ancestral apemen of 2011. We need to increase the pixel limits in light of this crisis. Our growth as photographers depends on it. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 12:05:58 AM · #60 |
Did anyone re-read those threads I posted a while back?
discussion 2009
(refers back to 2005 discussion)
4 more pages in 2009
Here's a hinT:
If you want to save your fingers from over use,
all that's needed is to repost the arguments we went through then.
No need to go through the trouble of typing them all over again.
Spend enough time keyboarding and you'll end up like me - sans fingerprints. Yes, I know. For some that would be an asset.
:)
PS  Yanko? +1
|
|
|
|
04/28/2012 05:01:42 AM · #61 |
Ahhh reminiscing .....
 |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 05:26:26 AM · #62 |
The solution is what a lot of other photo sites already use. I don't know what it's called but you upload your image at 1000 x pixels wide and the site automatically displays it at 800 pixels wide. You then have to click on the image to see it displayed at full resolution in this case 1000 x pixels wide. The text " click to see at full size" can even be added as a standard text underneath the image by the website owners. Bytephoto.com for instance displays images at 750 x pixels wide and by clicking you see them at 1000 x pixels wide.
Here is an example of what i mean: //www.bytephoto.com/photopost/current-contest-entries/p119833-the-undertaker.html
Another site that does something very similar is Photo.net
Here is an example from Photo.net //photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=15574812
Message edited by author 2012-04-28 05:46:20. |
|
|
|
04/28/2012 01:28:47 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by yanko:
People! DPC has a crisis brewing. The Nik / Topaz Bubble has just about run its course and is about to burst. How much longer will those two click processing magic fancy noobie voters? We can't risk our scores dropping! So unless there's a new envy-producing-ribbon-creating technology that hits shelves soon we may face the problem of the challenge results not showing a discernible difference from that of our ancestral apemen of 2011. We need to increase the pixel limits in light of this crisis. Our growth as photographers depends on it. |
LOL! Best post I've read in a while. :-D |
|
|
|
05/28/2012 05:10:46 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by Siggav:
I pretty much stopped voting when it increased to 800px because that requires me to scroll vertically on my laptop. I also pretty much stopped submitting photos portrait oriented photos to dpchallenge because it's just annoying to have to scroll.
Of course since I was pretty much lost at that change, pushing it even higher doesn't make that much of a difference personally, but really I think 800px is borderline too big and don't really see why you'd need more pixels than that for easy viewing on a screen. With very well processed images at the higher resolution it becomes pretty easy to print them out nicely enough so I'd get worried about images being stolen. |
You're kidding, right? You edit and view on a laptop??????
|
Yes, not even just a laptop, a dinky little 12" macbook air with screen resolution of 1366 by 768px. I don't have a desktop and while I can hook the laptop up to my tv I don't bother doing that very often. |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 05:07:03 PM · #65 |
I'm strongly opposed to any further increase. Not based on any nonsense about "piracy" or screen size. My monitor has 1200 vertical, same as it did ten years ago. But i believe increasing pixel count simply caters to those who replace talent with sharpness.
I would argue that if your photo cannot express itself in 640px, it's not an expressive work.
Everything above that is cheap eye candy, and that can sweeten a good image, but it won't polish a turd.
I've just decided to come out of retirement on DPC after four years of absence (two shots in current challenges), and i've found myself disappointed at the changes in quality of the ribbons, and numbers of entries. When i was last here it was common to see over 200 entries in a challenge. Now i'm seeing averages of 50, 60, 70 - so anyone who claims DPC has "evolved" is simply fooling themselves. In fact it's falling by the wayside. Back when we were on 640 we made every pixel count, editing zoomed to 4x or 8x - hardly anybody seems to do that now, looking at some of what passes for ribbons these days.
If DPC gives into the vocal (and tasteless) minority on this issue, it'll be another blow for the quantity versus quality movement symptomatic of the iphone generation. One that DPC has, up to now, distinguished itself by standing as a bastion against. |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 06:24:19 PM · #66 |
Originally posted by riot:
I'm strongly opposed to any further increase. Not based on any nonsense about "piracy" or screen size. My monitor has 1200 vertical, same as it did ten years ago. But i believe increasing pixel count simply caters to those who replace talent with sharpness.
I would argue that if your photo cannot express itself in 640px, it's not an expressive work.
Everything above that is cheap eye candy, and that can sweeten a good image, but it won't polish a turd.
I've just decided to come out of retirement on DPC after four years of absence (two shots in current challenges), and i've found myself disappointed at the changes in quality of the ribbons, and numbers of entries. When i was last here it was common to see over 200 entries in a challenge. Now i'm seeing averages of 50, 60, 70 - so anyone who claims DPC has "evolved" is simply fooling themselves. In fact it's falling by the wayside. Back when we were on 640 we made every pixel count, editing zoomed to 4x or 8x - hardly anybody seems to do that now, looking at some of what passes for ribbons these days.
If DPC gives into the vocal (and tasteless) minority on this issue, it'll be another blow for the quantity versus quality movement symptomatic of the iphone generation. One that DPC has, up to now, distinguished itself by standing as a bastion against. |
You either evolve or become irrelevent.
|
|
|
|
05/29/2012 07:39:21 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by riot:
I'm strongly opposed to any further increase.. |
You either evolve or become irrelevent. |
You mean like that statement of yours? |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 08:29:59 PM · #68 |
With folks like these still active, there's hope for DPC yet!
You have said it so much better than I could. thank you.
Originally posted by riot:
I'm strongly opposed to any further increase. Not based on any nonsense about "piracy" or screen size. My monitor has 1200 vertical, same as it did ten years ago. But i believe increasing pixel count simply caters to those who replace talent with sharpness.
I would argue that if your photo cannot express itself in 640px, it's not an expressive work.
Everything above that is cheap eye candy, and that can sweeten a good image, but it won't polish a turd.
I've just decided to come out of retirement on DPC after four years of absence (two shots in current challenges), and i've found myself disappointed at the changes in quality of the ribbons, and numbers of entries. When i was last here it was common to see over 200 entries in a challenge. Now i'm seeing averages of 50, 60, 70 - so anyone who claims DPC has "evolved" is simply fooling themselves. In fact it's falling by the wayside. Back when we were on 640 we made every pixel count, editing zoomed to 4x or 8x - hardly anybody seems to do that now, looking at some of what passes for ribbons these days.
If DPC gives into the vocal (and tasteless) minority on this issue, it'll be another blow for the quantity versus quality movement symptomatic of the iphone generation. One that DPC has, up to now, distinguished itself by standing as a bastion against. |
Originally posted by yanko:
People! DPC has a crisis brewing. The Nik / Topaz Bubble has just about run its course and is about to burst. How much longer will those two click processing magic fancy noobie voters? We can't risk our scores dropping! So unless there's a new envy-producing-ribbon-creating technology that hits shelves soon we may face the problem of the challenge results not showing a discernible difference from that of our ancestral apemen of 2011. We need to increase the pixel limits in light of this crisis. Our growth as photographers depends on it. |
|
|
|
|
05/29/2012 08:34:28 PM · #69 |
Originally posted by riot:
i believe increasing pixel count simply caters to those who replace talent with sharpness... Everything above [640px] is cheap eye candy, and that can sweeten a good image, but it won't polish a turd. |
While I don't disagree with your general sentiment, these two statements appear contradictory. I seems like you're saying an increase in size can be used to mask an inferior image and then turn around and say it won't. |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 08:37:58 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by riot:
I'm strongly opposed to any further increase.. |
You either evolve or become irrelevent. |
You mean like that statement of yours? |
no, I'd say more like your outlook of this site. |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 09:57:02 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
With folks like these still active, there's hope for DPC yet! .... |
Sorry, we don't need more Flat Earth Society members. I continue to believe we have an oblate spheroid. (metaphorical reference, of course) |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 10:31:53 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by sfalice:
With folks like these still active, there's hope for DPC yet! .... |
Sorry, we don't need more Flat Earth Society members. I continue to believe we have an oblate spheroid. (metaphorical reference, of course) |
Ouch, Well, that's one way to disagree, Richard. |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 10:40:31 PM · #73 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by sfalice:
With folks like these still active, there's hope for DPC yet! .... |
Sorry, we don't need more Flat Earth Society members. I continue to believe we have an oblate spheroid. (metaphorical reference, of course) |
Ouch, Well, that's one way to disagree, Richard. |
Well, I avoided the pejorative term "luddite" because it has too many direct, offensive connotations. (You do understand my sense of humor, no?) |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 10:42:33 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by sfalice:
With folks like these still active, there's hope for DPC yet! .... |
Sorry, we don't need more Flat Earth Society members. I continue to believe we have an oblate spheroid. (metaphorical reference, of course) |
Ouch, Well, that's one way to disagree, Richard. |
Well, I avoided the pejorative term "luddite" because it has too many direct, offensive connotations. (You do understand my sense of humor, no?) |
Yes, I understand both your terms very well, Richard.
What I missed, somehow, was the 'smiley face' that usually accompanies that type of humor. |
|
|
|
05/29/2012 10:47:30 PM · #75 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by sfalice:
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by sfalice:
With folks like these still active, there's hope for DPC yet! .... |
Sorry, we don't need more Flat Earth Society members. I continue to believe we have an oblate spheroid. (metaphorical reference, of course) |
Ouch, Well, that's one way to disagree, Richard. |
Well, I avoided the pejorative term "luddite" because it has too many direct, offensive connotations. (You do understand my sense of humor, no?) |
Yes, I understand both your terms very well, Richard.
What I missed, somehow, was the 'smiley face' that usually accompanies that type of humor. |
No, it wasn't sarcasm. It was satire. Had it been sarcasm, i would have used an emoticon. |
|
.....
