| Author | Thread |
|
|
06/12/2005 10:36:56 PM · #1 |
really, i just signed up, and i'm about ready to cancel my membership because of this.
the first sign of trouble was the 120x90 profile image size. what the hell? 120x90 is WIDE, not TALL, contrary to most portraiture rules.
secondly, and i don't remember what the exact requirement was for the contest, but there really shouldn't be any maximum size for pictures. what bearing does size have on why the picture should be disqualified? |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:38:52 PM · #2 |
I think the size requirements have to do with keeping screen resolutions in check. Viewing a 1024x768 image when your screen res is set to 800x600 means you have to scroll within your web browser, unless you have auto image-resizing turned on. Either way though, I think that's why the site designers maintain an image size limit, so that all screen resolutions can view the same site without nasty sizing issues.
Message edited by author 2005-06-12 22:39:33. |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:39:30 PM · #3 |
| Levels the playing field. Anyway, thems the rules. Stop worrying and learn to love the bomb. |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:40:01 PM · #4 |
| Space, uniformity and consistency. Its all good but sorta like combing your hair with the other hand, you'll get used to it. Peace and welcome to the collective. You will be assimilated. ;-) |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:40:31 PM · #5 |
Your profile photo can be 120x90 or 90x120.
And your photo won't be disqualified for being too large, you won't be able to submit it in the first place. Having a maximum size makes for easier viewer for a larger number of people and puts a limit on the server space.
Welcome to the site. I'd suggest you take a look around at all it has to offer before you threaten to cancel your membership. |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:41:07 PM · #6 |
Not everyone has access to high speed internet connections. Having the images at or under 150kb makes it speedier for everyone.
As for image dimensions, I prefer having limits on image size. On other sites, "click to see original" produces huge images that lack all meaning since they can't be viewed on the monitor with scrolling like mad.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:41:07 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by mk:
Your profile photo can be 120x90 or 90x120.
Having a maximum size makes for easier viewer for a larger number of people and puts a limit on the server space.
|
My sentiments exactly. :)
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:43:25 PM · #8 |
| this is a photo website stop with the server space excuse already |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:44:12 PM · #9 |
If you can't be happy it might be best if you do leave.. Not that I'm trying to make you leave.
"To date, 39,059 users have submitted 63,351 photographs to 346 challenges. 58,979 photographs have been submitted to 1,279 portfolios."
... And now one unhappy person threatening to leave for size requirements that 39,058 members already agree to.
Message edited by author 2005-06-12 22:44:41.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:44:16 PM · #10 |
rage is the word or perhaps crankiness. really isn't life too precious for this type of complaint. Hectic, calm down and take a breath. unless of course you are just living up to your username.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:45:46 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by hecticthe13th:
really, i just signed up, and i'm about ready to cancel my membership because of this.
the first sign of trouble was the 120x90 profile image size. what the hell? 120x90 is WIDE, not TALL, contrary to most portraiture rules.
secondly, and i don't remember what the exact requirement was for the contest, but there really shouldn't be any maximum size for pictures. what bearing does size have on why the picture should be disqualified? |
The site is designed so that anyone can use it for free. Potential members can view the site before deciding to spend money for a membership. So in that case, you get what you paid for, and you knew what you were getting.
??
Message edited by author 2005-06-12 22:46:54. |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 10:53:36 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by gusto:
this is a photo website stop with the server space excuse already |
Okay...then the restrictions are there just to tick you off. :) |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 11:01:15 PM · #13 |
I bet if he would have voted just once it would have been my photo, and yes it would have been a ten.
I wonder what is the smallest little bittiest thing anyone has bitched about.......hmmmmmmmm |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 11:01:20 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by gusto:
this is a photo website stop with the server space excuse already |
Okay...then the restrictions are there just to tick you off. :) |
Of course they are.. lol
Anyways.. In support of mk...If each file was 1mb in size they would already have 5.9 gigs of space used.. However thats a nice dream. Im sure alot of the people with these 5mp cameras who until needed too never resize their images and lets see.. averaging 4.5mb per file thats only 26.55 gigs.. yeah thats reasonable for all the free members to get to upload as many images as they want without having to resize them..
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 11:19:43 PM · #15 |
so people with low megapixel cameras have the same fair chance as pros.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 11:27:18 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by hecticthe13th:
really, i just signed up, and i'm about ready to cancel my membership because of this.
the first sign of trouble was the 120x90 profile image size. what the hell? 120x90 is WIDE, not TALL, contrary to most portraiture rules.
secondly, and i don't remember what the exact requirement was for the contest, but there really shouldn't be any maximum size for pictures. what bearing does size have on why the picture should be disqualified? |
So I can resample the picture until it's 500mb and 20000 x 15000 pixels? This complaint has got be be the most "rediculous" i've ever seen on this website.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 11:31:15 PM · #17 |
| I will admit that I have always wanted to submit a picture that will not fit on any monitor and will require users to scroll right and left and up and down to figure out the meaning of the image as a whole. j/k :) |
|
|
|
06/12/2005 11:47:07 PM · #18 |
you will find that 150kb. amd an AVERAGE of 600x600 on most sites. DPC is no differant, and IMO very manageable.
|
|
|
|
06/12/2005 11:57:44 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by hecticthe13th:
really, i just signed up, and i'm about ready to cancel my membership because of this.
the first sign of trouble was the 120x90 profile image size. what the hell? 120x90 is WIDE, not TALL, contrary to most portraiture rules.
secondly, and i don't remember what the exact requirement was for the contest, but there really shouldn't be any maximum size for pictures. what bearing does size have on why the picture should be disqualified? |
Welcome, Ryan, and thanks for your constructive suggestions.
As mk has pointed out, the profile photo limit is 120x90 in either dimension. To be honest, I was not aware of this until she pointed it out. I've just contacted one of the admins and he's updated the text of the preferences page to make this more clear.
The current challenge entry size maximums are 640x640 and 150k. The site is coded to check these requirements at submission time, so if you upload an image that exceeds the limits, it will be rejected and you will receive a message stating why. If your submission is successful, you do not need to worry about getting disqualified for a size violation.
To step up from 640x640, the next logical size would be 800x800. The trouble is, an image that is 800 pixels high is too tall to fit on a monitor running at 1024x768. Since this is still by far the most common resolution on the Internet, such a change would result in a large number of entries being too small to fit on the screens of the typical voter.
While it is technically possible to set a non-square limit like 800x640, we do not wish to set a non-square maximum size. The reason is that larger images tend to score better here, and such a change would favor landscape images at the expense of portrait. Our goal is to keep the playing field as level as possible, and we believe such a change would run counter to that goal.
The 150k file size limit is the harder one for many people to understand -- after all, broadband is everywhere, right?
Well, not really. There are stil shockingly large areas of the United States that have not been touched by the availability of broadband. The telephone and even the cable companies have been slow to expand broadband access into rural areas, where the cost of making broadband available is highest, and the density of customers to help them recover that cost is lowest. These users have no choice but to use dialup Internet access and deal with the resulting long download times.
The issue is further complicated when going overseas. In some countries (Iceland and Australia are examples), customers are charged a per-MB premium for accessing foreign Internet content. In New Zealand, the country has outgrown the size of it's international Internet links, so connections to foreign sites are slow regardless of the end-user's bandwidth. These are just a few examples, many other countries have similar complications.
As a result, we believe that 150KB offers a good compromise between image quality and end-user bandwidth concerns. For most images, in increase in or even removal of the maximum file size requirement does not offer an improvement in quality that is noticeable to most users as compared to the current 150KB.
Once again, thanks for you input. Take some time to look around and I'm sure you'll find enough positive aspects of the site to make it worth your while to stay. If that's not the case, though, then I certainly respect your decision to leave. This site is here as a place to kick back and have fun with an enjoyable hobby. Life is too short to spend it miserable... so if in the end you decide your time here does not make you happy, then it's probably best spent elsewhere.
Good luck with whatever you decide to do!
-Terry
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 12:31:40 AM · #20 |
Probably just a ghost account for somebody who wants to bitch but not take the heat. Maybe that guy who comes around every 6 months and starts a thread about the size limits are too small.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:27:37 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by Riggs:
I bet if he would have voted just once it would have been my photo, and yes it would have been a ten.
I wonder what is the smallest little bittiest thing anyone has bitched about.......hmmmmmmmm |
I could show you but they won't allow me to post that kind of photo here. :D lol
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 07:48:42 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by gusto:
this is a photo website stop with the server space excuse already |
Does disk space and bandwidth cost less for photo websites?
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:02:33 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by nfessel:
The site is designed so that anyone can use it for free. Potential members can view the site before deciding to spend money for a membership. So in that case, you get what you paid for, and you knew what you were getting. |
I'd just like to point out that he is not even a paid member. He registered for free yesterday and this thread is his first and only "contribution" to the site.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:17:03 AM · #24 |
I'm with the admins on this one - when i joined i wondered if the limits were a bit too strict, especially the file size, but now i've come to appreciate them.
Although i have a ludicrous multimonitor system at home, my desktop's main monitors being three 21"ers running at 1600x1200 each, i really appreciate the way i can view dpc properly when i'm travelling. Wherever i am, at any cybercafe or friend's computer, i can be sure the images will fit on the screen AND load fast.
I wouldn't ever sacrifice that for the little extra convenience of not having to fiddle with my file size before submitting.
|
|
|
|
06/13/2005 08:29:11 AM · #25 |
Size restrictions serve at least three purposes off-hand: Enforce standardization to level the playing field as others have said, Control how much server storage space is necessary (it could easily spiral out of control otherwise), and Bandwidth. This site probably sees a phenomenal amount of bandwidth as it is - imagine how much would be required if users were submitting 6-20mb photos each.
I understand and agree with the restrictions. |
|
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: 06/15/2025 12:58:57 PM EDT.
