DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> minimum dimensions
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 23 of 23, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/27/2005 11:37:22 PM · #1
can we please pluh-lease increase the minimun dimension from 160pxls to something larg enough that you can at least semi-reasonably see the image? 300pxl maybe?

Because honestly, everything under 300pxl is getting marked down for being "too small" anyways. Why not just nip that little problem in the bud?

Please!
 08/27/2005 11:47:32 PM · #2
probably a good idea.
 08/28/2005 12:15:37 AM · #3
I think that'd be cool, as long as the upper limit was increased as well. If you only had 600x300 (instead of the current 600x160), you are pretty limited about presenting long/wide images. Sometimes having the ability to enter a shot that has a striking dimension (either vertically or horizontally) can really add to the artistry of the photo. Just my 2 cents...
 08/28/2005 12:19:41 AM · #4
have a read here, this is a horse that has been to death a few times around here

image size increase thread
again

and again

Im gonna sick PETA on you horse beaters ;)

James



Message edited by author 2005-08-28 00:22:56.
 08/28/2005 12:46:45 AM · #5
respectfully JAB, 2 of those threads are about increasing the max, i can handle the max (it makes sence because if you check out w3schools monthly stats you will still see about 20% of the population use below 1024 screen res.) even though i have been personally hurt by this.

The minimum however is hurting *everyone* that submits a tiny image. They always get brown or close to because no one can see it. It is really a community standard already not to post tiny images unless you want to get shot down, i just wanna help these newbies out that don't know our community standard.

An alternative to my suggestion would be to add a little note, like they do on the filters rule about using weirdarse filters, that states that images below 500 don't go down well with voters.
 08/28/2005 12:47:39 AM · #6
I am in favor of the 300 min dimension limit... or at the very least a 250 pix one. If you enter something that is 640x160 you deserved to get smacked by the voters... and most people that enter 160 pix images usually have the other edge at something like 200. So a min of 250 or 300 will def. be a plus. And if you are using a camera with less than 1mp you shouldnt be entering challenges.
08/28/2005 12:50:18 AM · #7
my photography classes used 0.9mp cameras, and thier images are still 1152pxl on the larger side. I just dont see the sense in such a low pixel count, especially now the site requires EXIF avaiable cameras to enter, which means no one will be shooting a 160 picture.
 08/28/2005 12:57:29 AM · #8
The minimum pixel size cannot be increased from 160.

The reason is that DPC Prints allows the sale of a 48"x12" panoramic, and each DPC Print must have a corresponding portfolio entry. A photograph at this ratio and 640 pixels wide would be exactly 160 pixels tall.

-Terry
 08/28/2005 01:14:11 AM · #9
im not sure why anyone would want the small side of their image to be so small anyway. there are tutorials on this site which help in sizing to the max deminsions for the challenges here at DPC. All new members here should read that turorial.

now if MONEY were a prize on this site then I would not have a problem with allowing any image minium size, but since this site is more about having fun, learning and producing a good image with constraints then NO the image sizes do not need to be changed. Thats part of the challenge.

James

08/28/2005 01:18:36 AM · #10
Originally posted by jab119:
im not sure why anyone would want the small side of their image to be so small anyway. there are tutorials on this site which help in sizing to the max deminsions for the challenges here at DPC. All new members here should read that turorial.

now if MONEY were a prize on this site then I would not have a problem with allowing any image minium size, but since this site is more about having fun, learning and producing a good image with constraints then NO the image sizes do not need to be changed. Thats part of the challenge.

James


Again, 4:1 panoramics. See my previous post.

-Terry
 08/28/2005 01:29:52 AM · #11
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Again, 4:1 panoramics. See my previous post.

-Terry


I did, for prints thats one thing, for pure challenge entries with no associated print, why would you want it that small in the challenge?? Am I missing sometihng???

James
 08/28/2005 01:47:19 AM · #12
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
The minimum pixel size cannot be increased from 160.

The reason is that DPC Prints allows the sale of a 48"x12" panoramic, and each DPC Print must have a corresponding portfolio entry. A photograph at this ratio and 640 pixels wide would be exactly 160 pixels tall.

-Terry


Can a warning not be put in place as there has been for the use of extreme filters to state the 160 is for panoranics and small pixel counts on both sides of the aspect ratio will not be taken well by voters then?
 08/28/2005 02:55:23 AM · #13
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Again, 4:1 panoramics. See my previous post.

-Terry


I did, for prints thats one thing, for pure challenge entries with no associated print, why would you want it that small in the challenge?? Am I missing sometihng???

James

That's not to say that it has be 160x160 square. It could be, for example, 640x160. I can think of a few circumstances where that might work well, with the right subject matter.
 08/28/2005 03:07:07 AM · #14
You can do it by requiring at least one side of the pic to be greater than 250 or some such. That would allow you to still have the panoramic pics, as one side would be 640 or greater than 250. But when both sides are less than 250, then stop the entry.
 08/28/2005 07:06:28 AM · #15
Originally posted by skief:
You can do it by requiring at least one side of the pic to be greater than 250 or some such. That would allow you to still have the panoramic pics, as one side would be 640 or greater than 250. But when both sides are less than 250, then stop the entry.


This won't work for a 4:1 panoramic. If the short side is 250 pixels, the long side would have to be 1,000. This is much longer than the maximum allowed.

-Terry
 08/28/2005 07:08:07 AM · #16
Originally posted by jab119:
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

Again, 4:1 panoramics. See my previous post.

-Terry


I did, for prints thats one thing, for pure challenge entries with no associated print, why would you want it that small in the challenge?? Am I missing sometihng???

James


Yes. The fact that prints can be (and often are) associated with challenge entries.

-Terry
 08/28/2005 08:25:11 AM · #17
Not talking about the short side, I'm talking about the long side, if one side is greater than the 300 pixels or whatever, the other can be shorter. So if you have a picture that is 640 x 160 you have ONE side greater than the 300 pixels. The other side doesn't matter then. if you have a picture that is 160 x 640 likewise you have ONE side larger than 300 pixels. However, if someone puts in a picture that is 200 x 200 pixels, neither side is greater than 300 pixels, and therefore it would be rejected.

Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by skief:
You can do it by requiring at least one side of the pic to be greater than 250 or some such. That would allow you to still have the panoramic pics, as one side would be 640 or greater than 250. But when both sides are less than 250, then stop the entry.


This won't work for a 4:1 panoramic. If the short side is 250 pixels, the long side would have to be 1,000. This is much longer than the maximum allowed.

-Terry
08/28/2005 09:29:37 AM · #18
What's the problem...if someone enters something 160x160 pixels, that's their fault. If you know better, then you know better.

If you see one while voting, and you're that concerned, leave them a nice little comment on how to save their 600 pixel image at a lower quality or something.
 08/28/2005 10:32:55 AM · #19
Originally posted by skief:
Not talking about the short side, I'm talking about the long side, if one side is greater than the 300 pixels or whatever, the other can be shorter. So if you have a picture that is 640 x 160 you have ONE side greater than the 300 pixels. The other side doesn't matter then. if you have a picture that is 160 x 640 likewise you have ONE side larger than 300 pixels. However, if someone puts in a picture that is 200 x 200 pixels, neither side is greater than 300 pixels, and therefore it would be rejected.


what skief said...
 08/28/2005 10:59:33 AM · #20

UGH
 08/29/2005 11:02:41 AM · #21
I'd rather have minimum file size be 250k. Many times I have had to degrade the photo by saving them at less then 80% on the jpeg quality setting, as well as, cropping it.

It would be interesting to see how many of the smaller photos fit into this category.
 08/29/2005 11:34:47 AM · #22
Originally posted by mpemberton:
I'd rather have minimum file size be 250k. Many times I have had to degrade the photo by saving them at less then 80% on the jpeg quality setting, as well as, cropping it.

It would be interesting to see how many of the smaller photos fit into this category.


If you do a Save As, you degrade the image. However, if its Save for Web, image compression isn't as noticeable. Most images in my portfolio are under 90k. Some challenge entries are only 75k or less.
 08/29/2005 11:54:50 AM · #23
Originally posted by mpemberton:
I'd rather have minimum file size be 250k. Many times I have had to degrade the photo by saving them at less then 80% on the jpeg quality setting, as well as, cropping it.

It would be interesting to see how many of the smaller photos fit into this category.


For 640px challenge entries, there is really no reason to increase the allowable file size, it will not result in any *perceptible* increase in image quality. In fact, high-detail images up to 800x640 can be saved at 150k and still retain quite high quality. You'd be very hard pressed to tell the difference between 150k and 250k, for instance.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 04/30/2026 12:45:04 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2026 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/30/2026 12:45:04 PM EDT.