800 pixels photos in Members Challenges.

03/07/2006 10:00:46 PM · #276

LETS SUMMARIZE

Those supporting it says:
- more details in photo
- better crops

Those against it says:
- had to scroll
- image theft

Did I left out anything else?
Seems like only few points get debated over and over again.
Lets just wait for the poll results, shall we?

fotomann_forever

03/07/2006 10:05:16 PM · #277

Originally posted by crayon:

About sums it up. Hardly seems worth debating ;-)

Mazka

Panasonic DMC-FZ50

03/08/2006 02:59:25 AM · #278

I say nay for 800 pixels.
And thats not because of technical difficulties or because I'd have small screen. Its simply because 640px picture is enough already. Anyone with 17" monitor and below 1280x1024 resolution cannot catch the whole picture but only the few details there is. 800 pixels are way too big to view comfortably.
If we're talking only technically, yes. I could view 800 pixel picture with F11 and scrolling it to middle of the screen (1152x864 with 17"), but in normal situation even these 640 pictures fill the whole firefox' window.
Its just not appealing to have too big pictures. Sure you can view more details with bigger file and all, but its getting too big to gasp at once. You cannot see the whole "picture" but only the picture details - and what im saying is: thats only technically watching the picture, not viewing and evaluating it.

Most likely this been said already but had to spit my own gut in too.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/08/2006 04:45:49 AM · #279

At any given monitor resolution, monitor size is irrelevant anyway. a 1024x768 is showing 1024x768 pixels regardless of the size of the screen it is used on; it's just that smaller screens render things so tiny at higher esolutions that you need to use lower resolutions to get things big enough to read.

I could get more "real estate" out my 1600x1200, 22-inch monitor by upping the resolution, but as it is the 640-pixel images are already too small for me :-) It's not just DPC either, it's a balancing act on everything we use. When i click "actual pixels" in the PS display after resizing, what I see on my screen is physically smaller than what someone with a lower-resolution monitor is seeing. So I have to blow the image up to simulate what they are seeing, it's always confusing and unpredictable. That's why I like prints :-)

R.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

03/08/2006 05:00:15 AM · #280

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

That's why I like prints :-)

Then I recommend we vote on prints! Every week we will each get a photo-book with all the entries and 10 little checkboxes at the bottom of each for voting. They will come with a return envelope (postage paid) like NetFlix and we will send them to a group of people in Florida (known for their incredible ability to count ballots) to tally the scores.

Now... should the prints be 4x6? 5x7? 8x10?...

crayon

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

03/08/2006 05:05:08 AM · #281

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Then I recommend we vote on prints! Every week we will each get a photo-book with all the entries and 10 little checkboxes at the bottom of each for voting.

And membership would cost ten-fold, and the postal services would be happy :p

Majanka

Nikon D300

03/08/2006 05:11:55 AM · #282

Yep give me 800!Love the Idea!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

03/08/2006 05:29:33 AM · #283

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
That's why I like prints :-)

Then I recommend we vote on prints! Every week we will each get a photo-book with all the entries and 10 little checkboxes at the bottom of each for voting. They will come with a return envelope (postage paid) like NetFlix and we will send them to a group of people in Florida (known for their incredible ability to count ballots) to tally the scores.

Now... should the prints be 4x6? 5x7? 8x10?...

Hell, make 'em 16x20's; automate the whole process through DPC prints, and hire a staff to do the tallying and code the results. Truly revolutionary :-) At least we'd all be judging the same thing, anyway... Though, come to think of it, YOU probably would look at your print book under a glaring flourescent light in your mad-woody workshop while I, of course, would view them only under diffused, north skylight illumination, so we WOULDN'T be looking at the "same thing", would we?

jejejeâ�¢

Robt.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

03/08/2006 05:32:30 AM · #284

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

YOU probably would look at your print book under a glaring flourescent light in your mad-woody workshop

FYI, Mr. know it all - In my mad-woody workshop, I have a black light and sometimes a strobe light and sometimes I use both together. So I obviously have the viewing advantage. ;-)

03/08/2006 05:57:54 AM · #285

Originally posted by Art Roflmao:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:
YOU probably would look at your print book under a glaring flourescent light in your mad-woody workshop

FYI, Mr. know it all - In my mad-woody workshop, I have a black light and sometimes a strobe light and sometimes I use both together. So I obviously have the viewing advantage. ;-)

I guess a workshop strobe light makes sense for an old fart who's still using his flickering, 12-year old Samsung 14-inch monitor to surf the 'net and (unfortunately) score our challenge entries...

Robt.

sir_bazz

Pentax K-5

Pentax FA 50mm f/1.4 AF

03/08/2006 05:58:46 AM · #286

I don't mind too much which size we go with but the frustrating part for me is the slow load times of images when voting.

Having said that, I'm quite happy to go to bigger dimensions as long as the filesize limit of 150K stays.

cheers,
bazz.

e301

03/08/2006 05:59:41 AM · #287

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

only under diffused, north skylight illumination ...

At what specific time of day, Robert?