| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/14/2005 03:46:21 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Originally posted by megatherian:
I really don't believe how many challenges I've entered has much bearing on my abilities to critique photos or share my thoughts and opinions in the forums though. |
That's very correct; my point in bringing it up is that if you really want to get good challenge scores, you'll have to enter. You can't be concerned about your challenge scores, since you don't have any. Thus, I'm not sure what your motivation is. If we're just arguing for the sake of argument, I'm out of here and you are free to chat all you wish with someone else. I don't have time to waste blabbermouthing with someone who really doesn't care. If you really care about the site and really want it to be better, I'm all for some discussion. If you just want to blow off at the mouth about how the OP is an idiot or just play games with semantics, forget it. You're wasting my time and I'm not gonna give you the time of day. |
I know I rock the boat a lot and there are a few poeple on the site that will never want to be my buddy because of it (I'll still find a way to sleep at night). If I offended you it was not my intention, in all of my posts I do my very best to make it about the subject of the thread and not personal atacks on other people. I am entering challenges now but it's not just about me. I'd like the voting system and the site to work the best that it can for everyone. Obviously you can't make everyone happy all of the time and I'm not trying to paint some fairy tale world of how I think this place should be. There are numerous ways to solve "problem" though and I think we should encourage people to discuss the ideas. I come to this site because it's the best one I've found. Like many people I have opinions on how I think it could be improved and made even more fair. Not just for my entries (or future entries) but for everyones. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:47:23 PM · #77 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Perhaps we should all concede that this is a separate argument from changing the size of challenge entries???? Seems to me you are after something entirely different that I would bet would be granted if it were approached properly, since it doesn't affect the challenges at all. |
Well, no. This thread seems to pooh pooh on all ideas that are not well recieved by more established/SC/Admins peoples. As if the ideas are invalid simply because the elite of the site don't feel them necessary.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:51:33 PM · #78 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
ed- I mean no disrespect to D&L, just to the idea that we should sit down and shut up because our opinions don't matter. |
I don't think that the idea was that you should sit down and shut up or that your opinion doesn't matter. Clearly the opinions of the users matter and I think you'll find that they are frequently taken into consideration and implemented. It's just that in the end, D&L have the final say. It's not just automatic majority rule, that's all.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:53:25 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
... I was one of the few who voiced out over more editing freedom, resulting in advance editing rules. I don't here people complaining about that little change for the better... |
A belated thank you for that, however, one idea implemented doesn't mean that everything thrown out as a suggestion must be incorporated.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:53:39 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by wavelength:
Well, no. This thread seems to pooh pooh on all ideas that are not well recieved by more established/SC/Admins peoples. As if the ideas are invalid simply because the elite of the site don't feel them necessary. |
Another way to look at this is to consider the fact that we've actually looked into this suggestion and perhaps considered how it would affect the site as a whole. Maybe we have an ounce of insight. To put some sort of elitism spin on this is really low. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:54:03 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by wavelength:
ed- I mean no disrespect to D&L, just to the idea that we should sit down and shut up because our opinions don't matter. |
I don't think that the idea was that you should sit down and shut up or that your opinion doesn't matter. Clearly the opinions of the users matter and I think you'll find that they are frequently taken into consideration and implemented. It's just that in the end, D&L have the final say. It's not just automatic majority rule, that's all. |
This seems to contradict what you are saying:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by wavelength:
like I keep saying, at least take a vote on the stuff, these threads mean nothing. actual data on what the users want does. |
Actually, a vote means nothing, what the admins want does. |
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:55:24 PM · #82 |
MK and GeneralE are not the same person...they each have their own opinion.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:55:24 PM · #83 |
| Since I'm not GeneralE, I'm not actually contradicting what I am saying. Since you just got done pointing out that you were one of the voices active in pushing for the advanced editing rules, which we now have, I think you'll find my post to be fairly accurate. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:57:56 PM · #84 |
Admins are suppose to speak for the site. I didn'y say MK was contradicting herself, just another admin. That is why I used "This" instead of "You" ;o)
Change is good, embrace it! :D
Message edited by author 2005-12-14 16:04:46.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:58:52 PM · #85 |
Darn...I have to get on the road to get home. This has been SO much fun.
I would like to reiterate that this thread was originally started with a bit of sarcasm (I believe), put up to counter all of the "we need, we want, this needs to change..." threads. It's rare that a thread gets started that looks to the good of this site, how much fun it is, and what is actually right with it.
I for one enjoy this site and it's a shame that a simple fun thread like this one has to end up taking the path it did.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 03:59:32 PM · #86 |
| mk - it never ceases to amaze me how many people you manage to be in one week. You need to keep switching bodies i cant keep up. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:01:52 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
mk - it never ceases to amaze me how many people you manage to be in one week. You need to keep switching bodies i cant keep up. |
And always men.  |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:04:44 PM · #88 |
we need to get you one of those madonna bra's ya know one of those metal funnel things... so you can smack people over the head with it when they think you're someone else...
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by mesmeraj:
mk - it never ceases to amaze me how many people you manage to be in one week. You need to keep switching bodies i cant keep up. |
And always men. |
Message edited by author 2005-12-14 16:11:44. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:12:56 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Admins are suppose to speak for the site. I didn'y say MK was contradicting herself, just another admin. That is why I used "This" instead of "You" ;o)
Change is good, embrace it! :D |
Honestly, do you actually pay attention? The SC aren't admins.. they have no real power with anything other than challenge entries and rule enforcing. They are also a large group of people with *extremely* diversified opinions and stances on the site.
They do *not* automatically represent a united voice by *any* stretch of the imagination. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:15:24 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Admins are suppose to speak for the site. I didn'y say MK was contradicting herself, just another admin. That is why I used "This" instead of "You" ;o)
Change is good, embrace it! :D |
Just to be fair and be clear, "admin" is typically used to refer to one of TWO people - the site OWNERS, Drew and Langdon. Site Council members are NOT admins. They are a group of people who volunteer their time and assist Drew and Langdon in the management of the site. Neither GeneralE or mk is an admin. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:16:52 PM · #91 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
I would like to reiterate that this thread was originally started with a bit of sarcasm (I believe), put up to counter all of the "we need, we want, this needs to change..." threads. |
You are very correct. Probably too much sarcasm.
:) |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:18:24 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Artyste:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Admins are suppose to speak for the site. I didn'y say MK was contradicting herself, just another admin. That is why I used "This" instead of "You" ;o)
Change is good, embrace it! :D |
Honestly, do you actually pay attention? The SC aren't admins.. they have no real power with anything other than challenge entries and rule enforcing. They are also a large group of people with *extremely* diversified opinions and stances on the site.
They do *not* automatically represent a united voice by *any* stretch of the imagination. |
Does the SC have admin privileges on this site?
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:19:45 PM · #93 |
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Does the SC have admin privileges on this site? |
Nope. Just SC privileges. :) |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:20:41 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by Brent_Ward:
Does the SC have admin privileges on this site? |
Nope. Just SC privileges. :) |
:LMAO:
:D
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:28:20 PM · #95 |
Brent - this is a totally unsarcastic remark, so please understand it that way. I visited your website at //www.brentwardphoto.com/ - very impressed. Extremely high quality photography, nice site, etc. I must confess, though, that I was absolutely baffled to see the size of the images in your portfolio. They honestly look to be 400 or maybe 500 pix per side?
Again, I don't mean to be a jerk when I present that. I'm just very confused as to why you seem to feel that images need to be 800x600 on DPC, but you feel no need to present them at that level on your own site, over which you have complete control. Image theft isn't a problem, you've either used flash or scripting to prevent that fairly strongly, so I'm baffled. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:31:47 PM · #96 |
Originally posted by mk:
Another way to look at this is to consider the fact that we've actually looked into this suggestion and perhaps considered how it would affect the site as a whole. Maybe we have an ounce of insight. To put some sort of elitism spin on this is really low. |
I don't think it a lowball comment to note the fact that it's easy to single out new users by the established users.
It goes like this: user joins, get interested, gets some ideas in their head, suggest idea, gets slapped down, discovers that a whole host of people have agreed and suggested their same idea in the past MANY time, and then you just generally give up on suggesting good ideas because "it's been suggested before" and "oh no, not this again" mentality.
We have in our collective memory getting flamed up and down.
All I keep saying is, this should be about the super-majority of users (not a mere 51% even) and not about necessarily neglecting moving forward because we don't want to leave the stragglers behind. I'm sure I'd feel different if I were on dial-up of course, and I understand that. You can't keep on forever neglecting the needs of the many for the needs of the few.
I didn't say at all that you had no insight or understanding of the issues MK, and I didn't mean to offend, But you also have to understand how offensive the usual/average SC and established site member response to these questions is also. I just disagree with the genearalized assesment by some that the staus quo is actually the best way.
It's not really anything that would make me leave the site or try to insult you over just to prove a point, I really wasn't trying to do that at all, that's why is edited to include that I really did not mean any disrespect to anyone.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:34:24 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Okay, I'm gonna bite on this, since there's an ongoing argument that is not supported by any facts currently in evidence.... |
Nards, it's simply a fact that a computer screen resolves at a relatively low power, compared with a print. This means that if the physical size of any given detail falls below the screen's resolution threshold, it won't display crisply, if at all. Highly-detailed images suffer badly at the 640-pixel size limit. This is extremely noticeable when I'm shooting with the 10mm lens; it's SO wide that landscape details are positively TINY, and the 640-pixel size can't begin to this sort of image justice.
640x480 = 307,200 pixels in the displayed image. 800x640 = 512,000 pixels in the displayed image. So the 800-limit image has 2/3 more pixels than the 640-limit. This means that more detail can be rendered by a significant factor. For some images it doesn't matter at all. For other images it makes a huge difference.
The argument here would be that the 640-pixel limit is effectively discriminating against certain types of images, and this is true.
I'm NOT taking a stance for increasing the size limit (I understand why it is kept at 640) but just pointing out that we really don't need to PROVE the case; it's simply true that finely-detailed images can't be rendered cleanly at the 640-pixel resolution. If image quality were the only factor in play, we'd certainly go bigger.
Incidentally, the benefits of the 800-pixel size for finely-detailed images would obtain even if the file size were kept at 150Kb.
R.
|
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:43:43 PM · #98 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
Originally posted by nards656:
Okay, I'm gonna bite on this, since there's an ongoing argument that is not supported by any facts currently in evidence.... |
Nards, it's simply a fact that a computer screen resolves at a relatively low power, compared with a print. This means that if the physical size of any given detail falls below the screen's resolution threshold, it won't display crisply, if at all. Highly-detailed images suffer badly at the 640-pixel size limit. This is extremely noticeable when I'm shooting with the 10mm lens; it's SO wide that landscape details are positively TINY, and the 640-pixel size can't begin to this sort of image justice.
640x480 = 307,200 pixels in the displayed image. 800x640 = 512,000 pixels in the displayed image. So the 800-limit image has 2/3 more pixels than the 640-limit. This means that more detail can be rendered by a significant factor. For some images it doesn't matter at all. For other images it makes a huge difference.
The argument here would be that the 640-pixel limit is effectively discriminating against certain types of images, and this is true.
I'm NOT taking a stance for increasing the size limit (I understand why it is kept at 640) but just pointing out that we really don't need to PROVE the case; it's simply true that finely-detailed images can't be rendered cleanly at the 640-pixel resolution. If image quality were the only factor in play, we'd certainly go bigger.
Incidentally, the benefits of the 800-pixel size for finely-detailed images would obtain even if the file size were kept at 150Kb.
R. |
Okay, I'm taking this to be "expert testimony", which is typically regarded as testimony. Bear, please take no offense at this, but no one yet seems willing to do the work to put forth some proof for everyone to see. There is lots of discussion, but until someone at least edits four pictures to try to prove a point, it seems to me that they are standing only on expert testimony rather than evidence.
I believe your statements. Its not that I don't think more detail can be shown. What I'm trying to convince someone to prove is that this "missing" detail makes a difference - any difference - in the score that photo receives.
The opportunity is wide open to show me just how much of a caveman dork I am. Please. |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:46:30 PM · #99 |
Originally posted by nards656:
Okay, I'm gonna bite on this, since there's an ongoing argument that is not supported by any facts currently in evidence....
Could someone please post in their personal portfolio or somewhere on the web two versions of the same photo, just for comparison? One should be 640x480, 150k or less. The other should be 800x600, 250k. Pick something with as much detail as you like, please.
Then, please pick a different photo and subject it to the same treatment. Again, pick any image you like. It would be good if you could find two images such that one is better than the other at 640, while the opposite would be true at 800. In other words, can you make the "apparent goodness" of the photos "flip-flop" simply based on presentation size? (A rule for fairness here would be that you may not simply upsize a 640480 to 800600, you should be downsizing a larger image for all images so that quality is not compromised unfairly).
Please prove to me that the difference will be obvious. Given, one will be smaller than the other. To really make a fair argument out of this, it should be obvious to the average voter, who MIGHT look at the photos for 30 seconds each, that there is a flip-flop.
Prove to me there is a problem. I'm open minded. You say that "photos with a lot of detail don't compress well." Okay, fine. But prove to me that it's going to make your photo a winner and mine more of a loser for yours to be 800x600.
See, you fine folks are making the assumption that making the pics bigger is going to make a certain type of pic more likely to win. Beyond all the hype about monitor sizes, resolutions, bandwidth, DSL, satellite, infrastructure, and keeping up with the Joneses, my challenge to you is that your basis for the entire argument is flawed and basically an attempt to manipulate the vote in your favor.
Please remember that ALL photographers have the same options, as far as file size, etc., would go. If more detailed shots become available, what is to prevent EVERYONE from making the same advances that you say will be available to those who make photographs with "more detail"?
The playing field at 800x600 would be no more level than it is now. The shots that win are awesome shots, even at 640x480. Their creators learn how to maximize the medium, and they win with excellent material. Crappy shots are still going to lose, even though they may have more detail of their crappiness. We're after a level playing field here, and you are trying to skew it in your favor, primarily without basis.
That's my challenge to you. Prove to me the basis of your argument. Let's stop fussing and fighting and bickering over something that isn't even proven. Prove to me that the playing field will be MORE level if larger image sizes are allowed. Give me something to believe in. :) |
I'm at work so I don't have access to my portfolio for an example, and as Bear_music stated, âwe really don't need to PROVE the case; it's simply true that finely-detailed images can't be rendered cleanly at the 640-pixel resolutionâ.
But an obvious example of exclusionary images would be panoramic photos. For all practical purposes they are useless here. At the classic 2.5:1 ratio the resulting image would only be 256pixels on the shorter side. Iâd like to point out that is thumbnail size.
 |
|
|
|
12/14/2005 04:46:46 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by mk:
Since I'm not GeneralE ... |
Whew! I was starting to worry ... |
|
