| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/26/2004 09:22:27 PM · #101 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I positively cannot see how allowing MORE flexibiltiy implies a DISincentive to creatibity. Just my 2¢. |
True, it would allow panoramic entries, which are already allowed.
But, in the standard ratios, it confers a large visual advantage to landscape shots over portrait shots. If you feel that's a good idea, then I guess we'd have to just agree to disagree. Personally, I think it would be better to encourage breaking away from the more common landscape orientation, rather than making changes that discourage smaller, portrait entries.
Or at very least, picking a resolution that doesn't bias the entries one way or another.
You'd be left with the options of cropping, which are already allowed, or entering either a
800x600 landscape picture or
a 480x640 portrait picture.
That is, the landscape entries would be 50% larger than the portrait entries allowed. 50%. Not 5%. This isn't some insignificant difference, or a minor change that would encourage panoramic formats.
Given the choice right now, would you enter a picture that was a third smaller than average to compete in the voting ?
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 21:28:57. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:29:22 PM · #102 |
I wouldn't say as much "agree to disagree" as I would say "taking something different away from the situation." I also think we should encourage creative photography, but the reality is that monitors are "landscape", so if we want to use the majority of the available real estate, the result will be landscape.
I'd much rather see 800x800, but the number of folks using 1024x768 makes that option less workable. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:32:28 PM · #103 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I wouldn't say as much "agree to disagree" as I would say "taking something different away from the situation." I also think we should encourage creative photography, but the reality is that monitors are "landscape", so if we want to use the majority of the available real estate, the result will be landscape.
I'd much rather see 800x800, but the number of folks using 1024x768 makes that option less workable. |
That's the essence of the point. I believe it makes more sense to wait until 800x800 is tractable, rather than make a half hearted change that discourages particular standard format choices.
The reality is only 10% of monitors being used on the web right now can view a 600x800 image correctly. Most struggle to see a 700 pixel high
image without scrolling. With the current DPC format, you still need to
scroll to see an 800 pixel high image, even on a 1280x1024 screen, with all the space around the images.
It is not the right time to make this change. Maybe a couple of years from now it would make sense. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:35:11 PM · #104 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I wouldn't say as much "agree to disagree" as I would say "taking something different away from the situation." I also think we should encourage creative photography, but the reality is that monitors are "landscape", so if we want to use the majority of the available real estate, the result will be landscape.
I'd much rather see 800x800, but the number of folks using 1024x768 makes that option less workable. |
So why would imposing a 50% area penalty on portrait mode entries be an improvment for the site ? It shouldn't be about using all of the screen real estate. It should be about showing all pictures equally as well as is possible within the actual constraints of the current reality.
Look at any of the entries that don't make full use of the 640 pixel side, in any significant way (say, 20% less) and you'll see plenty of 'too small' or 'here's how you could fix the size problem' type comments. Now consider making your entry 50% smaller than average.
This was all beaten to death about 4 months ago too
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 21:50:06. |
|
|
|
10/26/2004 09:51:51 PM · #105 |
I didn't read all replies yet (just saw there are over 100!!!) but I wanted to comment on one thing:
Files of 800 pixels can EASYLLY not be more than the actual limit of 150k per file size. Heck, we can even do 1024x768 pictures at max file size 150k and they will still look very good. So upgrading the limit in width/height to 800 pixels would still use the SAME bandwidth DPC is currently using. Therefore:
NO need to upgrade the STORAGE
NO need to upgrade the server BANDWIDTH
NO extra $ needed for additional services (other maybe than actually coding the changes on the site- which doesn't seem like a problem to me since it is obvious the owners code their own site).
I strongly beleive this upgrade in image size is very well possible at no extra cost. Plus, even at 1024x768 screen resolution, the small part not visible in a vertical picture is not that bad and we can still scroll slightly to view the complete image. Further more, if people at 1024x768 don't like the fact that they miss a tiny part of the miage, they could still put their resolution slightly higher (like 1152x864- which is a very usable resolution on 17inch monitors +).
640 pixels has to go.
It is time we glorify photography for the art it is and feature the images in larger size of at least 800 pixels. I honestly cannot understand how we can promote properly the work and joy of photographers by offering their images in 640 pixels.
Martin
Ps. will continue my reading now. :-)
EDIT: I have finished reading the posts. Here are some additional comments that I would like to make:
About IMAGE THEFT:
First, image theft on the internet will always exist. Accept this fact now. It is not a fun thing, I know that from experience. A lot of my professional work (outside DPC) gets pirated. It doesn't mean I like it, and it sure doesn't mean I stand there doing nothing. I do what I can (contact webmasters to remove stolen content, put heavy copyright warnings and notices on my professional sites, contact server operators to remove content, in some cases contact lawyers to take care of the problem). Understand that by posting your images on DPC (or anywhere online), you expose yourself to people who have no morals and think it is OK to grab the pictrue and use it elsewhere as they see fit.
That being said, 800 pixels, 150k, is not a very dangerous size. I mean, there is not much a person can do with that image "outside" the web. Printing that file size on paper gives ridiculously low quality results. So don't worry to much about having you work stolen and printed in magazines, etc. And as for the images being used elsewhere on the web, know that it's not because they are 800 pixels that the images will spread more or faster. It won't make a difference compared to what you have experienced so far. 640 pixels or 800 pixels, you will still face the same amount of image theft.
Second, about SCREEN RESOLUTION:
If you want facts, here are some facts for you. Accoring to //www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm (BROWSER NEWS), dated this October, over 64% of users online have a resolution of 1024x768 and over. That is, the GENERAL population online. Now, if you take into consideration that DPC is a PHOTOGRAPHY website, than these numbers must be even higher. In general, people who take photos rapidly see the importance of being able to edit their images in screen resolution of at least 1024x768 and higher. It is safe to assume that a very large % of the population on DPC use 1024x768 and higher.
Third, about IMAGE QUALITY and FILE SIZE:
Take it from my experience, an image at 800 pixels will be of excellent visual quality at 150k. It is a much more pleasant experience to be able to view an image at 800 pixels 150k than to view the same image at 640 pixels even if it has 150k too. The extra quality in the compression of the smaller image will not compensate for the larger image view of 800 pixels. even if the image at 800 pixels has to be slightly more compressed than its counterpart 640, the overall quality of the larger image will still be more than adequate to fully feature the true visuals of the image. Don't beleive me? Do some tests. Save an image in 800 pixels at 150k, and show it to your firends and family. They will all think it's great! show it to other photographers and I'm 100% certain that they will not complain on compression artifacts or low compression quality.
Fourth, you don't HAVE to use 800 pixels:
If the limit is 800 pixels, what makes you think you HAVE to use 800 pixels? 800 pixels would be a LIMIT. Just like 640 is at the moment. Some people post under the current image size limit. Granted, it gives ridiculously small images at the moment when people do that, in a case of a limit of 800 pixels, you could still post yuor images in 640 pixels if you feel this is an adequate image size.
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 22:58:19.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:47:01 PM · #106 |
The bane of the software, hardware, crikey, ANY industry is adding features to get users to upgrades. Why buy a new car when your '94 will do everything an '04 will? Why use Windows XP when Windows 3.1 is just as good? Why use a 17" monitor when a 15" is just as good?
Oh wait, they aren't! They add features, features users come to know and love. And eventually the old versions will no longer be supported. They force you to upgrade. Is it a bad thing? Well it can be if they force you before the features are really there... but most of the time you upgrade and are generally happy that you aren't back using what you left behind.
It's the same thing for dpc. We can upgrade to a new standard that will enhance all of our images, making them look better, getting more people interested, selling more prints. Or we can leave it as it is until we realize that people are leaving for other sites that offer more flexibility.
Almost every new version of any product will have it's skeptics. The truth is, most skeptics are a) afraid of change AND (not or) b) have never tried the new version, and therefore don't know if it's better or worse. We're living in the digital age, one that changes every six months. Don't get stuck in the past.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:50:09 PM · #107 |
Originally posted by Gabriel:
Originally posted by jadin:
I'd like to see some examples. |
 |
Ummm. First off this is a 640 image. Second off I wanted examples of images adversely affected by being 800px @ 150k.
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:51:16 PM · #108 |
What about all the users with fancy new LCD monitors that only go up to 1024x768
Many of these users just upgraded, do you really think they're going to upgrade again so soon?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/26/2004 11:54:03 PM · #109 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
Second, about SCREEN RESOLUTION:
If you want facts, here are some facts for you. Accoring to //www.upsdell.com/BrowserNews/stat_trends.htm (BROWSER NEWS), dated this October, over 64% of users online have a resolution of 1024x768 and over. That is, the GENERAL population online. Now, if you take into consideration that DPC is a PHOTOGRAPHY website, than these numbers must be even higher. In general, people who take photos rapidly see the importance of being able to edit their images in screen resolution of at least 1024x768 and higher. It is safe to assume that a very large % of the population on DPC use 1024x768 and higher. |
It is safe to assume that a large % of users use 1024x768 and 800x600.
The reality is that only a small % use larger than 1024x768, which is obviously required to see a 800x600 portrait picture without scrolling.
The site you pointed to confirms this, amongst many others.
I did some tests with images in portrait orientation, 700 pixels high.
The majority of the people I asked could see about 2/3rds of the image
without scrolling.
Message edited by author 2004-10-26 23:55:54. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:06:35 AM · #110 |
MOST of those who'd have to scroll at 1024x768, also have to scroll right now. They are obviously surviving. I don't think the problem is as drastic as you'd like to think. Chances are most of them are quite used to scrolling (for obvious reasons) and maybe don't even think about it anymore.
I think the benefit of the majority of photos being viewable at a larger (and more natural) size far outweigh a few people having to scroll.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:09:27 AM · #111 |
Originally posted by jadin:
MOST of those who'd have to scroll at 1024x768, also have to scroll right now. They are obviously surviving. I don't think the problem is as drastic as you'd like to think. Chances are most of them are quite used to scrolling (for obvious reasons) and maybe don't even think about it anymore.
I think the benefit of the majority of photos being viewable at a larger (and more natural) size far outweigh a few people having to scroll. |
90% of the site is a few people?
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:10:39 AM · #112 |
Originally posted by jadin:
MOST of those who'd have to scroll at 1024x768, also have to scroll right now. They are obviously surviving. I don't think the problem is as drastic as you'd like to think. Chances are most of them are quite used to scrolling (for obvious reasons) and maybe don't even think about it anymore.
I think the benefit of the majority of photos being viewable at a larger (and more natural) size far outweigh a few people having to scroll. |
Yes, most of the people already have to scroll. Why make it worse ?
Right now, a small part of the image is missing, with this proposed change closer to a third of the image would be missed.
90% isn't a few, btw. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:10:43 AM · #113 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by jadin:
MOST of those who'd have to scroll at 1024x768, also have to scroll right now. They are obviously surviving. I don't think the problem is as drastic as you'd like to think. Chances are most of them are quite used to scrolling (for obvious reasons) and maybe don't even think about it anymore.
I think the benefit of the majority of photos being viewable at a larger (and more natural) size far outweigh a few people having to scroll. |
90% of the site is a few people?
-Terry |
My argument still stands.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:14:31 AM · #114 |
In any case, it's probably a moot point. I talked to Drew earlier this evening (to get some site stats on the issue), and he also feels strongly that increasing the image size is a bad idea, primarily for the reasons already mentioned.
-Terry
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 12:24:06 AM · #115 |
Well this is probably the straw that broke this camel's back. I most likely won't be updating my membership. For starters I rarely enter any challenges. After checking EzPrints prices they are quite reasonable making the membership fee here worthless. They offer lustre prints right now. Dpc has yet to update the coding of well anything since I've been here, despite the promises of "almost there!". A general stubborn refusal to change. And an equal stubborn refusal to disagree with it's clientele.
"You won't be missed!" - Yeah, yeah, the feelings mutual.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 01:37:44 PM · #116 |
Man, I can't beleive the "scroll argument" is the breaking point here. I mean, there ARE solutions to that. what if the voting session was done in a nwe window with only the image and rating displayed, with the comment field bellow. Then everyone would be able to view the images properly without having to scroll.
There are solutions you know.
Change can be good. Especially when it is improving things.
Another question the owners need to ask themselves here: is DPC a photo fan club, or is this a photography website?
Anyway... As I don't participate in the challenges as often as the regulars here, my point of view has to be taken with a grain of salt.
Martin
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 13:43:30.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 01:42:48 PM · #117 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
Man, I can't beleive the "scroll argument" is the breaking point here. I mean, there ARE solutions to that. what if the voting session was done in a nwe window with only the image and rating displayed, with the comment field bellow. Then everyone would be able to view the images properly without having to scroll.
There are solutions you know.
Change can be good. Especially when it is improving things.
Anyway...
Martin |
I'm with you. And though I wouldn't like to use too much compression, I think a key point you made below is that we don't **necessarily** need to consume more space or bandwidth. Most other sites allow larger images--some with as low as a 120 KB limit.)
On a topic of trying to impart the "importance" of this issue to Drew/Langdon, it seems any suggestion always has a bell curve of agreement/objection. I sure wish there were a poll feature in the forums here. Wouldn't it be good to show Drew/Langdon just exactly how many agree and disagree with this suggestion? (Oops--that's not meant to threadjack, it's meant to suggest we get a COUNT of how many for and against and show those numbers to Drew/Langdon) |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:49:07 PM · #118 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
Man, I can't beleive the "scroll argument" is the breaking point here. I mean, there ARE solutions to that. what if the voting session was done in a nwe window with only the image and rating displayed, with the comment field bellow. Then everyone would be able to view the images properly without having to scroll. |
How do you show an 800 pixel high image plus voting options, on a 1024x768 screen, in a new window or not, without scrolling ? There are only 768 pixels.
Users with higher resolutions than 1024x768 are in the very significant minority. The links you provided even confirm that information. Change is good, when it doesn't just improve things for a very small group at the expense of the 90% majority. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:49:40 PM · #119 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
On a topic of trying to impart the "importance" of this issue to Drew/Langdon, it seems any suggestion always has a bell curve of agreement/objection. I sure wish there were a poll feature in the forums here. Wouldn't it be good to show Drew/Langdon just exactly how many agree and disagree with this suggestion? (Oops--that's not meant to threadjack, it's meant to suggest we get a COUNT of how many for and against and show those numbers to Drew/Langdon) |
In my experience managing two websites + forum, I have come to the conclusion that sometimes, you need to make the change without a POLL out of personal convictions. People are so scared of change, it's amazing.
But what the heck, if the users are the one running the show, a poll is a good way to do it.
Martin
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:50:58 PM · #120 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Wouldn't it be good to show Drew/Langdon just exactly how many agree and disagree with this suggestion? (Oops--that's not meant to threadjack, it's meant to suggest we get a COUNT of how many for and against and show those numbers to Drew/Langdon) |
I assume they just look at the browser stats and see how few users actually have a screen that can display an 800 pixel high image. There are plenty of sites (quoted in this thread) that demonstrate how small a percentage that is of general web viewers. If you charitably assume that we have a much more select group and even go as far as doubling the numbers of users at higher resolutions, you still find that this change would make things worse for 80% of users.
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 14:56:52. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 02:52:58 PM · #121 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
]
In my experience managing two websites + forum, I have come to the conclusion that sometimes, you need to make the change without a POLL out of personal convictions. People are so scared of change, it's amazing.
But what the heck, if the users are the one running the show, a poll is a good way to do it.
Martin |
So Martin, from your website stats, how many of your users are working with a resolution capable of viewing an 800 pixel image as a whole, in portrait mode ? For many images, scrolling ruins the impact. It isn't some silly backward looking restriction. If it was a better way to look at images, we'd just show them half at a time, at the time.
More generally, and not directed at Martin, I've seen various and repeated comments that suggesting this is a bad idea is somehow 'resistant to change' or just unwilling to encourage progress, or wanting to limit creativity. What I haven't yet heard addressed is why anyone thinks this is a good idea. Specifically why encouraging more voters to scroll more often somehow is an improvement.
Yes, there are advantages for a small group of users with larger screen resolutions.
Yes, there are advantages for users who only enter landscape images. But for the actual majority of users who don't fall in the intersection of those two groups, how is this change an improvement ?
It is a simple question: why does making more users less able to view the entire picture correctly, improve things at all ? Why is that progress ? Because that's what is being proposed.
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 15:09:24. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:16:00 PM · #122 |
I simply cannot believe the amount of hand-wringing over this idea. I've seen (with one exception) every objection dealt with in an objective manner, including...
- Bandwidth: there is no need to raise the file size
- Image height: Image height could remain at 640, while width could increase
- Having to scroll to vote: Again, if image height stays the same, no need to scroll any more than currently. I've seen very good suggestions as to how to actually improvie the situation (new, image-only window). I'll add to this, the voting bar could be alongside, where there is more room, rather than across the bottom.
I agree in some respects with jadin, the tone of this thread is so anti-change it is a bit shocking. Instead of discussing how change can make things better, the focus is on how bad any change would be for "the majority of the users." CJ's opinion that "it's moot..." only puts the exclamation point on this.
If we are to move the site forward and retain members and grow it, we need to address change in an objective manner. I'd support a public poll; since this seems to have generated a lot of emotional duscussion, let's see how the community feels about it. |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:20:31 PM · #123 |
| If it's really a moot point, why is everyone pressing on this? While D&L are generally most responsive to user suggestions, inciting a member revolt right now doesn't sound like an effective nor pleasant strategy. Obviously, they have other priorities for the site right now. What's wrong with just relaxing and letting the issue go for a while? |
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:21:06 PM · #124 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I simply cannot believe the amount of hand-wringing over this idea. I've seen (with one exception) every objection dealt with in an objective manner, including...
- Bandwidth: there is no need to raise the file size
- Image height: Image height could remain at 640, while width could increase |
You'd be left with the options of cropping, which are already allowed, or entering either a
800x600 landscape picture or
a 480x640 portrait picture.
That is, the landscape entries would be 50% larger than the portrait entries allowed. 50%. Not 5%. This isn't some insignificant difference, or a minor change that would encourage panoramic formats.
Given the choice right now, would you enter a picture that was a third smaller than average to compete in the voting ? This isn't resistant to change for the sake of being resistant to change. It just isn't encouraging something that actively reduces the viewing and voting abilities of a large majority of the userbase.
If you think it is a good idea, I suggest you enter any contest you feel like with an image 50% smaller than average and see how you get on. It is exactly what you are proposing, right now. As a member, proposing the change, how do you suggest this improves things for users wanting to enter portrait mode images at a standard ratio ?
Again, I'm not anti-change. I've had this debate about 4 times when I was on site council. Not once, and still not in this thread, has anyone who proposed it bothered to consider what is good for the majority of the site, entrants or voters.
You could have a poll, but you already have the data on screen resolutions. We already know that the vast majority of users can't view images at the resolutions suggested, other than the frankly strange 800x640 suggestion (50% smaller portrait than landcape entries)
Message edited by author 2004-10-27 15:25:40.
|
|
|
|
10/27/2004 03:27:52 PM · #125 |
Is there some reason all images can't default at 800 pixels horizontal and vertical, and have the website scale the images to fit? It already does this if you upload an image larger than 640 pixels. So why not enable full sized viewing for those who want the larger image, and those who don't can have it scaled (like it already does).
What would your objection be to that?
|
|
