| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/25/2012 10:27:24 PM · #1 |
I'm only having difficulty with landscape orientation. The 800 pixels work well for portrait orientation.
I'm finding myself cropping things in so much, simply because the full image looses too much detail when shrinking down to 800 pixels. I'm looking at a shot for an upcoming challenge, and I'm ending up cropping off half the photo, simply because the interest is in the details. Yet it is a much weaker photo cropped.
I'm doing that frequently. I'm cropping for a weaker photo so that people can see the details that I'm thinking are interesting.
Some people were arguing that going 1200 pixels landscape vs 800 portrait is a disadvantage. I really don't believe that -- I love portrait orientation, and I'd be happy to have people's Icelandic masterpieces be 1200 pixels wide, so that I could also take advantage of 1200 pixel landscapes, nature photos, etc.
Can we reopen the discussion? |
|
|
|
04/25/2012 10:52:10 PM · #2 |
| I strongly support a reopening of the discussion. Image selection and image success or failure is significantly affected by the the 800 pixel constraint. |
|
|
|
04/25/2012 10:53:11 PM · #3 |
I think any size increase would be great. Just think about 1x and their 950 pixel limit and how much better the photos look on that site. Some of it has to do with quality but I think a big part of it is just size.
I'm not sure about different sizes for portrait versus landscape orientation. I think there has been a discussion on how landscape orientation wins more often than portrait orientation does anyway. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 12:10:06 AM · #4 |
The same images do indeed usually look much better at 1x with just an increase to 950 pixels. I think this would be a very good size for a "next step" at DPC. It isn't so much larger that some will be worried about image theft, and it isn't so big that it won't be viewable on most displays.
Anything bigger than 950 pixels might be still too big for some voters using laptops to view images. I'm less concerned about tablets because with the iPad dominating the market even the first two models can display 950 pixels (if the users know to click the image once more to scale it to full size). With tablets you can also easily pinch an image in to view it in it's entirety if it doesn't natively fit the screen resolution- and then it pops back to native resolution so viewers can see the sharpness as intended. Still, I would not want people voting with tablets until all of them display color as well as the new iPad or at least close to that.
Personally I cringe at the thought of voters voting on my images using a laptop that can't even see an image all at once (at least on a tablet they can pinch it down to check your composition). So until laptop screens all get higher resolution "retina-like" displays I would prefer we go to just 950 pixels (with a bump in file size of course). |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 01:06:32 AM · #5 |
| Absolutely, absolutely absolutely, have to agree with you Wendy. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 12:37:00 PM · #6 |
Message edited by author 2012-07-24 16:32:20. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 12:45:54 PM · #7 |
Oh yes please!! 1000px + would make a huge difference and personally I'd say 1000px longest edge no matter what the orientation.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2012 12:51:59 PM · #8 |
The issue comes from the screen orientation of most monitors, right? You go much over 750 px height these days and you get some sort of crop on a lot of screens.
Is it fair to functionally limit a portrait photo to 750 px height, while a landscape photo can successfully be viewed at 1000 or even 1200px?
Just playing devils advocate... I've often thought that we needed a wide landscape size option... say, for images under 500 px height... then your width limit jumps to 1200 or something?
So 800 x 800 max... OR... 1200 x 500 max? |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 12:52:21 PM · #9 |
While I generally agree with the need for larger size images, displays with high enough resolution to display 1000px vertically still appear to be in a minority.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2012 12:58:45 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by james_so:
While I generally agree with the need for larger size images, displays with high enough resolution to display 1000px vertically still appear to be in a minority. |
I wonder whether the statistics are representative to users on this site. Web programmers to photographers. I dunno. Maybe? But my gut says definitely maybe.
Should be easy enough for langdon to do a survey for a week or so and get some stats.
It's a no brainer that it is better if you have the resolution for it. But if you don't... then it is worse. So we need to find out which is the majority that need to be satisfied before anything happens. Either a poll or something in the back end.
Message edited by author 2012-04-26 12:59:33.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2012 01:18:13 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by NiallOTuama:
Either a poll or something in the back end. |
:-/ |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 01:24:06 PM · #12 |
What if the change was 800px max VERTICAL edge.
i support the larger format but as it stands now, 800px portrait forces me to scroll on a widescreen monitor.
If we go to a larger format, tptb ought to look into a better viewer, the way the site is coded doesn't really handle larger images all that well.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2012 01:30:34 PM · #13 |
What's the big deal?? Just hit CTRL- to stop scrolling! It is when I have to hit CTRL+ when the problem of the unfair size shows.
This discussion has been going on forever and ever! Typical of DPC. Why not JUST MAKE THE CHANGE AT LAST!! |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 02:12:06 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
What's the big deal?? Just hit CTRL- to stop scrolling! It is when I have to hit CTRL+ when the problem of the unfair size shows.
This discussion has been going on forever and ever! Typical of DPC. Why not JUST MAKE THE CHANGE AT LAST!! |
+1 Just do it! |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 02:27:17 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
What's the big deal?? Just hit CTRL- to stop scrolling! It is when I have to hit CTRL+ when the problem of the unfair size shows.
This discussion has been going on forever and ever! Typical of DPC. Why not JUST MAKE THE CHANGE AT LAST!! |
I agree something should just get done already Margaret. However your comment that it's currently easy enough to hit CTRL- has me a little worried. If you and other people are doing that to see an image in its entirety to judge the composition, etc. and then going back to native resolution, great. What worries me is that during voting people will just leave their browser at "- View" so they don't have to do any scrolling. The details on many images will look terrible if seen in a resolution they were not prepared for.
What I would like to see, is increased resolution for images along with a "zoom out button" so people with lower resolution displays can click to see the entire image. BUT; as soon as they stop holding down on the zoom out button the image would jump back to native resolution (kind of like pinching in on a tablet does). So there would be no danger that voters would evaluate an image solely on a non-native resolution viewing.
Message edited by author 2012-04-26 14:28:29. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 02:52:12 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by deeby:
+11 (yes, I'm invoking Spinal Tap) |
+1 for the +11!!! |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 03:08:24 PM · #17 |
| And so it goes on, and on, and on... Hitting Ignore |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 03:37:17 PM · #18 |
| That's why I'm saying not only do we need an increase in pixels, we need a better voting interface. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 03:39:32 PM · #19 |
Anything over 800 pixels is not fair to those of us who only use cell phone cameras.
|
|
|
|
04/26/2012 04:26:52 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Anything over 800 pixels is not fair to those of us who only use cell phone cameras. |
Your cell phone camera isn't fair to those of us who have non-smartphones. :) |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 04:42:22 PM · #21 |
| When this change is finally made I'm going to size my images down to 800px then upsample them to 1000 or 1200 or whatever just to throw everyone off. |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 08:05:47 PM · #22 |
(sigh) Am I the only one left standing who wonders about piracy of images?
We had this discussion when we went from 640 pixels to 800. And it was a long one.
The compromise was at 800 pixels and a big imprint across the image where you wanted it.
Upper/lower/center/etc.
Now? With 1000 or 1250, the sky's the limit.
I would think anyone who is interested in selling their images (and I do sell mine) would be
concerned about raising the number of pixels available to be lifted. Even now it's
possible if you know how, to erase the © symbol from our challenge records and make a
decent print from our material.
Still, now the only thing this tired old subscriber to DPC can say is: "Whatever." |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 08:13:28 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Anything over 800 pixels is not fair to those of us who only use cell phone cameras. |
No! when did you upgrade, Strikeslip? |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 08:20:29 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by sfalice:
We had this discussion when we went from 640 pixels to 800. And it was a long one. |
I have only been here since Nov 2010. How long did the previous discussion last?
And why people on 1x with 950x850 do not worry about piracy? |
|
|
|
04/26/2012 08:31:08 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I have only been here since Nov 2010 |
In your present guise ;)
I don't submit good enough images to be stolen (yet) so not overly bothered but 1,000 pixels would provide excellent real estate to nick and upsample imho. And, whilst I currently vote on my laptop even my pc can't display a 1,000 pixel high image on screen and scrolling would take away from viewing for me. |
|
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: 07/27/2025 07:02:25 PM EDT.
