150K limit ... increase to 200K?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/18/2005 09:42:28 AM · #1

This may sound like a rant but I think it's legit:
I've been having some difficulty with the file size limit on my images. I can understand the 640 pixel limit, but more colors and more depth in an RGB image mean larger file size. The detail and color on one of my images required that I save it at 50% quality (save for web out of Photoshop). This ends up making for a softer image - and if it gets sharpened after that it starts to get noisy. Since members are paying for this site, maybe there's room for 50K more? I'm thinking we may get a little more depth and detail in some images. Any thoughts.

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

10/18/2005 09:45:59 AM · #2

I've never had a problem with the 150k limit, normally able to save between 80% and 100% quality, until the grain challenge, where my photo has a lot of detail and colour, and grain increases file size. I, too, had to save my photo at 50% quality.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

10/18/2005 09:55:45 AM · #3

What others have said about the issue

Here

and here

and here

and Here

Both sides have valid arguements, I believe.

Gauti

Canon EOS-7D

Canon EF 17-40mm f/4.0L USM

10/18/2005 09:57:51 AM · #4

what about a new survey on how many ppl are still on dial-up?
and how many with download restrictions?
been quite a while since the last survey/poll
I, for one, would like the larger file size

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

10/18/2005 09:58:58 AM · #5

I did a test some time ago, with an image that contains both large areas of very high frequency detail, and areas of very smooth color adjacent to the detail. This is a "worst case test" for compression problems.
In short, I found that at 640x640, 150k is completely adequate for web display. It's even adequate at slightly large image dimensions. The added pixel count does cause the quality to drop, but the drop in compression quality is still more than offset by the added detail present in the larger images.
I strongly recommend NO processing, especially sharpening, after saving for web.

Edit:
It is past time we re-ran the "dialup poll." I'm on record as PERSONALLY in support of "proposition 800", however I'm not sure an increase in file size from 150k to ??? would be of great benefit.

Message edited by author 2005-10-18 10:00:56.

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/18/2005 09:59:57 AM · #6

Originally posted by Gauti:

... I, for one, would like the larger file size

No thank you. 40K connection here.

UNCLEBRO

Canon EOS-30D

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

10/18/2005 10:02:37 AM · #7

How about we drop the file size to 100k?

At least it will a different argument for a change?

edit: decided to change "differnet" to "different"

Message edited by author 2005-10-18 10:05:41.

Nikon AF Nikkor 85mm f/1.4D IF

10/18/2005 10:25:13 AM · #8

Seems like historically people usually want more pixels. I'm just trying to get a little more sharpness and quality via a slight increase in file size. Especially in Autumn when we might be shooting leaves and high detail, contrast-heavy shots. I'm not askiing for TIF support or anything - just a proper allowance of near maximum JPG compression. Many images would still be under 150K. Just because someone has a dial-up connection doesn't mean a 50k increase would make it impossible for them -- so files would take a maximum of 33% longer to upload.

If storage is the issue, I recently uploaded 900 MB to a single photo site without a problem - for free ... there's no limit. Since I'm paying for a membership here, I would think "allowing" 50K more if needed might be acceptable. I can see as with all topics it is controversial, trite, redundant, etc. Seems like there are plenty of people who spend enough time oon the forums to have read everything before. If you use white backgrounds all the time, you never have to woorry (more controversy :)!!!

Message edited by author 2005-10-18 10:26:14.

pawdrix

Nikon D700

10/18/2005 10:26:54 AM · #9

I like the 150k limit because it forces you to take better pictures.

My early entries didn't have much sharpness to give....meaning the 150k limit would knock me back but made me take greater control over my dof, shutter speed...tripod to where the 150 was no longer an issue.

karmat

Apple iPhone 7

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

10/18/2005 10:27:57 AM · #10

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Gauti:
... I, for one, would like the larger file size

No thank you. 40K connection here.

Oh wow, 40K. Try 32. :( It takes a couple of minutes just to load each picture now.

kirbic

Canon EOS R5

Canon RF 24-70mm f/2.8 L IS

10/18/2005 10:32:08 AM · #11

The discussion does come up regularly, and IMO it does so because the quality of our images as we present them on the site is a topic of significant concern to all of us. It's natural for it to keep coming up as new users join who are not privy to the earlier discussion, and as more tenured users feel the need to revisit the topic in light of the ever-changing state of technology.
Please do take a look at my image test, linked earlier. I think you'll see that a larger pixel size is a far more constructive change than an increase in file size without a commensurate increase in image dimensions.

10/18/2005 10:33:27 AM · #12

I've never heard of anyone correlating quality of image with file size ... until now. Are you saying that I am a bad photographer? ... I already knew that!

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/18/2005 10:37:13 AM · #13

I'll take alook at that test. Not quite sure how it will apply to my 2 images that gave me trouble but I'll give it a shot. Thanks everyone for your input. ...

EDITED ...
OK - I glanced at that test and I'm not sure your image poses a worst-case scenerio. I would love to post my image here but it is currently being voted upon. Dark, complex areas seem to add a great deal to file size. Unfortunately, my dark side is sometimes revealed in my images .. maybe I need to lighten up!!!

Message edited by author 2005-10-18 10:40:21.

adamweb

Canon EOS-6D

10/18/2005 10:44:21 AM · #14

geez what DPI are you guys saving at for 150k not to be enough for a 640x480 image? I've heard anything past 72 isn't really noticable on most monitors anyway...

Konador

Canon EOS-500D Rebel T1i

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 IS

10/18/2005 10:48:53 AM · #15

Originally posted by adamweb:

geez what DPI are you guys saving at for 150k not to be enough for a 640x480 image? I've heard anything past 72 isn't really noticable on most monitors anyway...

DPI is nothing to do with how images are displayed on monitors, just in print.

Olympus 9-18mm f/4.0-5.6 M.Zuiko Digital ED

10/18/2005 10:49:36 AM · #16

Originally posted by karmat:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Gauti:
... I, for one, would like the larger file size

No thank you. 40K connection here.

Oh wow, 40K. Try 32. :( It takes a couple of minutes just to load each picture now.

OK -- with all good intentions, this sounds like it must be killing you. Sorry I'm nosey but it looks like you have over 23000 votes cast. If it takes a minute to view an image, that means you've spent 16 days just waiting for images to pup-up. Not sure if my math is right here but ... add the the time it takes to look at them (let's say 5 seconds) and ... well my wife wants to kill me already! ... I can appreciate that dedication -- let's keep it at 150k !!!! ... Lots of love!

jonr

Olympus OM-D E-M5

10/18/2005 10:50:36 AM · #17

Originally posted by adamweb:

geez what DPI are you guys saving at for 150k not to be enough for a 640x480 image? I've heard anything past 72 isn't really noticable on most monitors anyway...

Um... DPI has nothing to do with on-screen viewing (yet). A dot in the photo is a dot on the screen. You could set your file to 5000dpi and it wouldn't make a differnce. (Until you print) :)

glad2badad

Apple iPhone 16 Pro

Lensbaby Sweet 35 Optic

10/18/2005 10:52:02 AM · #18

Originally posted by metatate:

... Just because someone has a dial-up connection doesn't mean a 50k increase would make it impossible for them -- so files would take a maximum of 33% longer to upload.

This statement makes me laugh! ;^) It already takes FOREVER to try and vote. Actually, I don't vote anymore at home - I usually wait until I have my office day (once a week) and buzz thru them with our high-speed connection there. Once the votes are in I can adjust up/down much easier.

Talking about speed, one thing that could help us dial-up users is a way to comment on challenge entries without having to load the image from the thumbnail view. Many times I want to go back and add some comments on images I've already looked at but to add comments you have to load the entire image again. Just give us a text box - the parameters have already been passed in javascript to know which image the comments apply to.

By the way - a 33% reduction at 40K would make it equivalent to 26.8K!

jfriesen

Panasonic LUMIX GH5

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

10/18/2005 10:53:23 AM · #19

slow 56k modem here, I live in the woods (almost literal) and the phone lines are stractchy and I don't ever connect well. 56gay!

adamweb

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

10/18/2005 10:58:42 AM · #20

Originally posted by jonr:

Um... DPI has nothing to do with on-screen viewing (yet). A dot in the photo is a dot on the screen. You could set your file to 5000dpi and it wouldn't make a differnce. (Until you print) :)

oic, but still how is 150K not enough? everyone saving at level 12 or something?