| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/29/2012 11:58:55 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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? |
Jeb, I'm using a perfectly fine CRT monitor which gives me "calibrated" output (prints) already, so why would I want to spend even $200 on a new monitor when I've been in a negative cash flow overall for the past three years or so ... so yes, such a change would "force me to upgrade" (or scroll) unnecessarily and spend money I really need more for other things; not to mention my computer OS/video card wouldn't handle a big monitor anyway ...
Also, in a contest setting with voting, I think it's important for everyone to be presented with as close to the same view as we can make it; resizing is worse than scrolling, and does not present the same image as the photographer submitted. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 10:01:26 AM · #77 |
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?) |
Pathetic - when you have nothing meaningful to contribute as a counter-argument, but still feel you have to put up a fight, you just turn to ad hominem attacks? If you want your viewpoint taken seriously, stop with the playground crap.
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
True that i could have made myself clearer. I meant that higher resolutions seem to be requested mainly by those for whom sharpness and shiny details are a substitute for compositional, tonal and conceptual talent. I did not mean to imply that such misdirections could succeed in an objective way; that's not to say the majority of the modern crop of voters aren't easily distracted by such a ploy. Just look at the glut of identical ultra-wide sunset landscape shots that are prevalent in the top scores of almost every challenge now, by-the-numbers shots entirely devoid of composition, originality or expression. The sole response they evoke is "ooh, shiny" - zero meaningful emotional content. Just because the voters click a high number doesn't mean the photo isn't mediocre on an objective scale. If the resolution is raised even further, we'll just see more unoriginal shots emphasising the money spent on sensors and glass rather than ones where the entire image can be taken as a meaningful artistic expression, and the artist has really considered the luminance of every pixel.
I'm on my phone atm but i'll post some example links when i get home.
By the way, hi Scalvert, good to see you still active here :) |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 10:22:56 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by riot:
Originally posted by scalvert:
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. |
True that i could have made myself clearer. I meant that higher resolutions seem to be requested mainly by those for whom sharpness and shiny details are a substitute for compositional, tonal and conceptual talent. I did not mean to imply that such misdirections could succeed in an objective way; that's not to say the majority of the modern crop of voters aren't easily distracted by such a ploy. Just look at the glut of identical ultra-wide sunset landscape shots that are prevalent in the top scores of almost every challenge now, by-the-numbers shots entirely devoid of composition, originality or expression. The sole response they evoke is "ooh, shiny" - zero meaningful emotional content. Just because the voters click a high number doesn't mean the photo isn't mediocre on an objective scale. If the resolution is raised even further, we'll just see more unoriginal shots emphasising the money spent on sensors and glass rather than ones where the entire image can be taken as a meaningful artistic expression, and the artist has really considered the luminance of every pixel.
|
what's with all the artistic expression crap? all people want is to see are their pictures shown at a higher quality.
Message edited by author 2012-05-30 10:25:36. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 10:40:59 AM · #79 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
what's with all the artistic expression crap? all people want is to see are their pictures shown at a higher quality. |
No personal offence intended, but if you're here asking "what's with all the artistic expression crap", then you've sort of made my point for me. This isn't a desktop wallpapers site. There are plenty of those online already. The great artworks here are not mere "pictures". The reason i came here in the first place, and a lot of what has driven my personal development as a photographer, is not just to take shiny snapshots. I feel that i'm an artist with something to express; i think that's also true of the majority of talented photographers here, and the motivation for a lot of newcomers to join the site. I think it would be a shame to encourage the dilution of that drive by catering to those who want DPC to end up like every other shallow ego-stroking gallery site where an image's public exposure and potential for appreciation is dictated solely by how suitable it is for a desktop wallpaper. We already have deviantart for that. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 11:09:57 AM · #80 |
Let's see if I have this right:
Those of us who desire larger image-size maximums are mostly seeking them because we do complex, detailed images that don't show well at smaller sizes -- landscapes, in particular. We're frequently forcing our images into square crops, even though the crop may be less-than-optimal, in order to expand the detail and make it visible.
But, according to  riot, what's really motivating us is the desire to glorify our "shiny snapshots". Apparently, detail is "bad"...
In response to which, I post his highest-rated image, from the 640-pixel days. Note the extremely detailed nature of the shot. Note the square crop. Presumably he felt the need to get as much of that detail visible as possible...
Of course, this doesn't prove anything, but there's at least a smidge of irony in it :-)
R.
Message edited by author 2012-05-30 11:10:24.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2012 11:27:59 AM · #81 |
Originally posted by riot:
I meant that higher resolutions seem to be requested mainly by those for whom sharpness and shiny details are a substitute for compositional, tonal and conceptual talent. |
That's a rather cynical suggestion. Is it not plausible that such requests are made simply because a larger format brings out subtle detail and an immersive quality that cannot be appreciated at a small size? Galleries and juried shows favor large prints for the same reason. I'm skeptical that voters are more impressed by the size of a photo that lacks artistic merit. If anything, it would make creative and technical deficiencies more obvious while a great image could be studied in detail. I know for a fact tha... um... I mean this guy I know told me that it's easier to mask poor image quality with a smaller size. I've... er... I mean, he's even used borders on occasion to take advantage of a smaller format when a full frame would reveal photographic incompetence.
Originally posted by riot:
By the way, hi Scalvert, good to see you still active here :) |
Thanks, but I'm afraid "active" is a relative term. I've entered only one challenge since August, although I do have another entry submitted (an image, coincidentally, that is far more impressive when you can study the details). ;-)
Message edited by author 2012-05-30 11:33:07. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 11:47:43 AM · #82 |
I want the larger pixel count because the details are completely getting lost in some of the shots. Have you noticed that most wildlife shots are completely lacking in any frame of reference?
In wildlife shots, it is the detail that's fascinating.
I have a shot of a great blue heron rookery -- 10-12 nests in the trees, with herons in a bunch of the nests. It's really cool full screen, but it was incredibly disappointing when I shrunk it down -- so many details are just lost, so I ended up cropping a similar photo so that you get more of an idea of what the nests are like.
With a larger pixel count, we can have the details and the environment. Why chose one or the other if you can have both?
This shot -- it was the whole line of birds that interested me.
But once you shrink it, you don't see the gradations in the feathers, you don't even see the feathers in most cases. The one on the right is just a blob.
I find that I end up cropped all of the context out of nature shots, just so that the details of the nature can be seen. I think it's a big loss.
(yes, I know that the quality of any of these isn't great -- but you still get the idea.)
Message edited by author 2012-05-30 11:52:31.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:00:26 PM · #83 |
| don't bother trying to convince someone the benefits of 8x10's when they can only wrap their head around a 4x6. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:02:09 PM · #84 |
| Guys, why is this discussion happening here, and not at the Satisfaction site? Every issue I've ever posted there (suggestions, glitches, etc.) has received prompt attention from Langdon. For better or worse, that's what he reads and responds to. However, if you like these perpetual, pointless threads, carry on. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:07:02 PM · #85 |
Originally posted by tanguera:
Guys, why is this discussion happening here, and not at the Satisfaction site? Every issue I've ever posted there (suggestions, glitches, etc.) has received prompt attention from Langdon. For better or worse, that's what he reads and responds to. However, if you like these perpetual, pointless threads, carry on. |
They were addressed in the beginning. The problem is that no one goes there any more. So to get any attention, you end up putting it here.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:20:14 PM · #86 |
| Bigger would be better for everyone, can't see the problem. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:35:41 PM · #87 |
What I cannot understand here is that the main person complaining about the size increase has been here 8 years, only submitted 65 entries, only given 934 votes and hasn't entered a single challenge in 4 years - seriously stop complaining mate and go take some pictures - let those that participate here have a say without your rude tones (and I quote):
"Pathetic - when you have nothing meaningful to contribute as a counter-argument, but still feel you have to put up a fight, you just turn to ad hominem attacks? If you want your viewpoint taken seriously, stop with the playground crap."
|
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:50:08 PM · #88 |
| Yes, I suppose if many people only have small screens and upsizing the pics mean they have to scroll on every image, that could be a problem. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:55:53 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by jagar:
Yes, I suppose if many people only have small screens and upsizing the pics mean they have to scroll on every image, that could be a problem. |
that why we need a better viewer, the website doesn't make the best use out of the real estate we have. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 12:58:47 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Mark-A:
What I cannot understand here is that the main person complaining about the size increase has been here 8 years, only submitted 65 entries, only given 934 votes and hasn't entered a single challenge in 4 years ... |
I'm complaining about (protesting) a size increase, and I've been here ten years, have over 1000 challenge entries (three in voting right now), and gave a practical (economic) reason for my objection. I don't vote as much as I used to, partly because I already have to scroll vertical or large images ... :-( |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 01:11:25 PM · #91 |
I threw this out early on, but to me, there's always going to be an advantage to a square cropped image, be it 800 or 1000 px. So, why not just add another "landscape" image size criteria.
800px x 800px - OR - 1000px x 600px (or whatever, 1200px x 500px?)
That way we won't have people making 1000px x 1000px monsters that will require some people to scroll?
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
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? |
Jeb, I'm using a perfectly fine CRT monitor which gives me "calibrated" output (prints) already, so why would I want to spend even $200 on a new monitor when I've been in a negative cash flow overall for the past three years or so ... so yes, such a change would "force me to upgrade" (or scroll) unnecessarily and spend money I really need more for other things; not to mention my computer OS/video card wouldn't handle a big monitor anyway ...
Also, in a contest setting with voting, I think it's important for everyone to be presented with as close to the same view as we can make it; resizing is worse than scrolling, and does not present the same image as the photographer submitted. |
Hey General, with a CRT, you may be at an advantage here. A CRT doesn't have a true 'native resolution', so you should be able to increase your viewing pixel area without any serious equipment upgrades. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 01:16:44 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Mark-A:
What I cannot understand here is that the main person complaining about the size increase has been here 8 years, only submitted 65 entries, only given 934 votes and hasn't entered a single challenge in 4 years ... |
I'm complaining about (protesting) a size increase, and I've been here ten years, have over 1000 challenge entries (three in voting right now), and gave a practical (economic) reason for my objection. I don't vote as much as I used to, partly because I already have to scroll vertical or large images ... :-( |
Sorry General I had read and understand your predicament, I was more annoyed with the other persons comment rather than the size increase debate ;)
Personally an increase would be good but I do feel for people like yourself that would be at a disadvantage, unfortunately technology has advanced and the costs come down to a point where probably the majority of people would not have real issues with a 1000px longest edge.
I certainly wasn't complaining about your arguments though all very valid :)) |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 01:19:41 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by JamesDowning:
Hey General, with a CRT, you may be at an advantage here. A CRT doesn't have a true 'native resolution', so you should be able to increase your viewing pixel area without any serious equipment upgrades. |
If I make it so that I can vote on a portrait image without scrolling, the type gets too small to read the titles (I realize some would consider that an advantage), and the details get even smaller -- those details may be present but too small to see.
Originally posted by Mark-A:
Personally an increase would be good but I do feel for people like yourself that would be at a disadvantage, unfortunately technology has advanced and the costs come down to a point where probably the majority of people would not have real issues with a 1000px longest edge.
I certainly wasn't complaining about your arguments though all very valid :)) |
I do support the suggestion for the occasional stitched panorama challenge, with a size limit of 1600w x 800h ...
Message edited by author 2012-05-30 13:23:10. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 01:29:01 PM · #94 |
ETA: deleted because it was some weird double post....
Message edited by author 2012-05-30 13:29:39. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 01:39:42 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
If I make it so that I can vote on a portrait image without scrolling, the type gets too small to read the titles (I realize some would consider that an advantage), and the details get even smaller -- those details may be present but too small to see. |
Not sure what browser you're using, but I know that firefox has a feature where you can zoom text only. If you're having trouble reading photo titles at that screen resolution, I imagine forum text must be an issue to you even now. Maybe try looking into that feature? Even with today's 800px height limits, it could potentially help you a lot (increase screen resolution, and keep text size essentially the same - while not killing image quality with in-browser resizing nor requiring scrolling). |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 02:07:58 PM · #96 |
| I'll look into that feature ... :-) |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 06:35:22 PM · #97 |
I would hope they keep the 800 height limit, but increase the horizontal. I love portrait orientation, and I wouldn't feel like I'm being slighted at 800.
|
|
|
|
05/30/2012 06:56:50 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would hope they keep the 800 height limit, but increase the horizontal. I love portrait orientation, and I wouldn't feel like I'm being slighted at 800. |
+1 When the horizontal dimension is limited to 800 pixels, it changes the presentation. Images with more detail, like landscape images, are at a severe disadvantage to images with simple subjects. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 07:04:01 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would hope they keep the 800 height limit, but increase the horizontal. I love portrait orientation, and I wouldn't feel like I'm being slighted at 800. |
+1 When the horizontal dimension is limited to 800 pixels, it changes the presentation. Images with more detail, like landscape images, are at a severe disadvantage to images with simple subjects. |
I have always felt this way. |
|
|
|
05/30/2012 08:48:03 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by hahn23:
Originally posted by vawendy:
I would hope they keep the 800 height limit, but increase the horizontal. I love portrait orientation, and I wouldn't feel like I'm being slighted at 800. |
+1 When the horizontal dimension is limited to 800 pixels, it changes the presentation. Images with more detail, like landscape images, are at a severe disadvantage to images with simple subjects. |
i thought that too, i suggested earlier that we change it to 800px vertical edge as opposed to long edge, but would landscape become the crop of choice based on the larger size? |
|
