| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/12/2014 01:42:06 PM · #26 |
I know almost nothing about the behind the scenes aspects of dpchallenge, but...
I think Langdon has read the "Four Hour Work Week".
dpchallenge seems to be his 'muse'.
A set it and forget it revenue stream. He is very lucky to have attracted such a community of talented and dedicated folks. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 01:46:51 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Would we settle for implementation of Proposition 1000? |
If the SC is discussing any increase and 1000 is more likely to happen than 1200, I vote YES on Proposition 1000. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 01:53:43 PM · #28 |
Why 1000 though, and not 1200? What's the rationale here?
|
|
|
|
10/12/2014 02:24:19 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by Garry:
Why 1000 though, and not 1200? What's the rationale here? |
don't ask questions Garry you might get muted :) |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 03:40:31 PM · #30 |
| Very few of us work with monitors that can view 1200 pixels vertically. Setting a size limit like 1200x850 is not going to fly. The vertical-picture submitters would be outraged. That's why 1000 is more likely, FWIW. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 03:47:54 PM · #31 |
| I do a fair amount of vertical submissions but I wouldn't be outraged - I realize that monitors are wider than they are tall. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 03:48:23 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Very few of us work with monitors that can view 1200 pixels vertically. Setting a size limit like 1200x850 is not going to fly. The vertical-picture submitters would be outraged. That's why 1000 is more likely, FWIW. |
 |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 04:13:26 PM · #33 |
I reckon the max res for vertical and horizontal shots should be different. Within browsers, there's more to work with on the horizontal side, mainly being that there's usually just the scroll bar there. Vertical, there's toolbars, status bar, etc. Even a modern non 4k display will not comfortably display a 1000px vertical image. A little space around the image would be preferable. Many laptops are running at 1366x768 (a resolution which is about 30% of the browser display statistic market), so 800px on the vertical side would seem to be the max.
On a physiological note, if you make voters scroll left to right to see more of a horizontal image, they'll make a "no no" gesture ;)
Also, 500px site is a bit laggy. I like how much more instant DPC loads. I don't like sites resizing my image, up or down, or using the browser's zoom function. Images are not seen as it's meant to be seen as far as sharpening goes.
So maybe from a point of view of coding, maybe we can at least try for a 900px vote and work our way up to 1000px? but still keeping that first point in mind.
ETA: I browse/vote on a 1920x1200 display (24").
Message edited by author 2014-10-12 22:15:44. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 05:24:25 PM · #34 |
i don't want more than 800px unless we get a lightbox style viewer, between toolbars and menu bars in our browsers, 800px is too large sometimes.
i'm all for the larger size if its implemented with a new voting viewer. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 06:14:05 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by Techo:
Many laptops are running at 1366x768 (a resolution which is about 30% of the browser display statistic market) |
That's the real crime against nature. I can't believe manufacturers insist on cutting costs so much that in 2014 even mid-range laptops with a 15.4 inch screen come with such a pitiful resolution, when IPS full-HD and beyond panels are out there.
Going from a retina display MBP or even my 17 inch 1920x1200 MBP to looking at one of those almost hurts my eyes, it's horrible. But they're gonna keep tacking on brand names to make you think the laptop speakers are magical, putting in bargain-basement hard drives with way too much storage space and setting people up for data loss, and coming up with fancy styles and names to make you pay more for a laptop put together from the fisher-price parts bin.
I guess some of the ultrabooks and the business grade laptops are still good, but the average person probably won't be willing to spend the extra money considering how much they bump up the price to get a decent display. No wonder tablets are taking over the consumer internet device segment - it's actually competitive. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 06:24:39 PM · #36 |
Yep, there are a lot of laptops out there with only moderate resolution... I'm typing this on one. Even a full-HD (1920x1080) screen won't display a 1000px image fully with the current voting screen, though fixing this wouldn't be that difficult.
All in all, I would fully support an increase, simply because I have found myself in the same boat as so many others; once a shot is reduced enough to enter, it can lose impact, if it is a high-detail image. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 06:27:01 PM · #37 |
| I would welcome 1000 at least and would be delighted with 1200 on a retina laptop 800px looks like a thumbnail when i resize in PS |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 06:27:11 PM · #38 |
Control + scroll down to get it to fit on screen.
Message edited by author 2014-10-12 18:27:33. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 07:01:28 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Yep, there are a lot of laptops out there with only moderate resolution... I'm typing this on one. Even a full-HD (1920x1080) screen won't display a 1000px image fully with the current voting screen, though fixing this wouldn't be that difficult.
All in all, I would fully support an increase, simply because I have found myself in the same boat as so many others; once a shot is reduced enough to enter, it can lose impact, if it is a high-detail image. |
I'm on a wonderful, large screen on my desktop, but it's really wide, and not as tall. So anything over 800 pixels vertical, I'd have to scroll. I'd love a 1200 widthwise, vertical -- I'm afraid if it doesn't fit, I'd simply scroll to see if the photo looked interesting enough to bother resizing. I wish we'd stick with 800 for the height and 1000-1200 for width. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 08:00:11 PM · #40 |
| Whatever size it increases to (if it does), I vote for the same pixel dimensions landscape and portrait. So, 800x800, 1000x1000, 1200x1200 max. Just my $0.02 |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 08:55:01 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Let's make it large enough so that most people have to scroll horizontal as well as vertical. I don't intentionally vote down when I have to scroll, but I don't get the full impact of the photo. I know I am in the minority... |
The thing is, if it's too big you can just hold the control button down and turn the mouse wheel to make it smaller, or use Command-minus/plus to change the zoom on a Mac. It's not a difficult thing to adjust. I do it all the time when shots are too long vertically. |
Haven't read everything after this post yet, but doesn't making it smaller defeat the purpose of having it larger? |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 09:20:28 PM · #42 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Haven't read everything after this post yet, but doesn't making it smaller defeat the purpose of having it larger? |
Not for those who CAN view it full-size at their native screen resolution. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 09:23:54 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by Elaine:
Originally posted by backdoorhippie:
Originally posted by Elaine:
Let's make it large enough so that most people have to scroll horizontal as well as vertical. I don't intentionally vote down when I have to scroll, but I don't get the full impact of the photo. I know I am in the minority... |
The thing is, if it's too big you can just hold the control button down and turn the mouse wheel to make it smaller, or use Command-minus/plus to change the zoom on a Mac. It's not a difficult thing to adjust. I do it all the time when shots are too long vertically. |
Haven't read everything after this post yet, but doesn't making it smaller defeat the purpose of having it larger? |
Added pixels can also increase the level of detail that can be presented, so in theory the photos should be of higher technical quality. By holding the ctrl button and scrolling to fit the image to your screen, you'll be able to view the entire image, as any photographer would prefer (or replicate the same exact view you have now), but the image presented would be of higher technical quality. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 09:54:34 PM · #44 |
Excuse me, but if you resample the image to display the pictures in fewer pixels you will almost certainly degrade the quality, lose detail, and not see the same image the photographer posted.
Message edited by author 2014-10-12 21:54:53. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 10:29:35 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Excuse me, but if you resample the image to display the pictures in fewer pixels you will almost certainly degrade the quality, lose detail, and not see the same image the photographer posted. |
My thought exactly.
Scrolling or resizing just doesn't fit my voting style. A new monitor may come after a new computer, but not in the next year.
The argument suggesting detail equaling quality also seems weak when there are many examples of excellent detail at DPC, and seemingly diminishes the more important qualities of composition, lighting and subject matter in photographic excellence. |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 10:31:01 PM · #46 |
Originally posted by Garry:
But what about the poor souls on laptops....which is the oft-repeated response in opposition of the change. |
Everybody knows you are supposed to buy a high enough resolution desktop, with a calibrated monitor, before you vote on all those masterpieces that would for sure win, if only you would.
Of course, in the next breath, there will be no sympathy for those with laptops, or tablets, but plenty of whining about the fewer numbers of people who do vote.
Desktop sales and large monitor sales are plunging, so naturally it seems appropriate that DPC reject all other technology.
|
|
|
|
10/12/2014 10:33:43 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Garry:
Control + scroll down to get it to fit on screen. |
Adding an extra step now to vote? :-( |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 10:35:31 PM · #48 |
| 300k limit still in effect - yes / no? |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 11:14:23 PM · #49 |
| Wow. It seems like only yesterday when the cries for 1000 px were all that could be heard... |
|
|
|
10/12/2014 11:54:03 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Excuse me, but if you resample the image to display the pictures in fewer pixels you will almost certainly degrade the quality, lose detail, and not see the same image the photographer posted. |
Well, that's what we do anyway when we downisze to 800 before submitting. Flickr and 500px both resize to fit screen and I haven't noticed any problems with those. The real problem comes if you resize UPWARDS to bigger than submitted size, and neither of them do that, nor is anyone proposing that here. |
|
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: 07/23/2025 06:46:09 PM EDT.
