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

DPChallenge Forums >> Challenge Suggestions >> Best of 2005 - With a Twist
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 19 of 19, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 12/14/2005 12:10:39 PM · #1
I don't know if there is a Best of 2005 Challenge in the works, I hope so. But if so, let me suggest a twist.

D&L have been doing a great job testing and prototyping new ideas for DPC. I believe the site is benefiting from this experimentation!

How about allowing a larger image - just for the Best of 2005 Challenge - as a test or a protogtype. Up the max dimension to 800 and the max file size to 250K. It seems like the larger size and resolution would show off the Best photos of the year to their best advantage. Afterwords, solicit member reaction to the test to identify the paractical problems encountered, if any, and get member input regarding whether to keep the larger image size - based on the test, rather than based on intuitive reactions we have seen so far.

No commitments at this point to keep the large size ... just a test.
 12/14/2005 12:12:03 PM · #2
...code changes for a test?

last thread about this...

edit to add link to most recent thread regarding this, like when - yesterday? ;^)

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 12:14:10.
 12/14/2005 12:20:14 PM · #3
D&L have been coding changes for tests for some time. The changes would be in the submit logic which is probably pretty localized and may even include less than 25 lines of code.

I know it's been discussed over and over and over again, but never with the benefit of facts or data. Lets not have a fact-free discussion but rather an experienced-based one.

Originally posted by glad2badad:
...code changes for a test?

last thread about this...

edit to add link to most recent thread regarding this, like when - yesterday? ;^)
12/14/2005 12:22:10 PM · #4
I'm sure there's a lot of facts and data that D & L have access to that a meer user/member wouldn't.
 12/14/2005 12:31:45 PM · #5
Sure there are facts. Only 11% of DPC users use dial-up. An 800x800 image is 56% bigger than 640x640. X% favor a change, Y% don't. And so on ... but none of these facts derive from trying it out.

Lets just try it once. We'll see what we see.
 12/14/2005 12:41:19 PM · #6
Well, if they're going to make some code changes, I would like to see the 'Photographer found comment helpful' checkbox when I go in to view my 'Comments Received'. Then I wouldn't have to open the image, check the box, use the back button to return to the 'Comments Received' list, then do it all over again...

You know, being a dial-up user it's time consuming doing all of that. ;^)
 12/14/2005 01:15:50 PM · #7
11% using dialup - I guess we just say to heck with them and go for what the majority needs.

I don't think that would be a good business decision. Some of those 11% are paying members. What would they be getting for their membership if this change were made?

This is only one of the issues.

Screen resolution: At 1024 x 768 a 640 tall picture just fits if you use F11. Let them scroll.

I don't think so. Judging an image based on only seeing part of it is just as good as judging an image by the thumbnail.

I'm not one for by guess and by golly experimentation. However, if these facts weren't available then an experiment may be in order.

As glad2badad said, there are other features that should probably get higher priority.

This does not mean this suggestion should be thrown away. When the time comes that it makes good business sense to up the image size then the changes could be made.

Just some random thoughts.
 12/14/2005 01:24:28 PM · #8
Just for the sake of argument, I see plenty of sites that have an option for viewing size. Any reason we can't use that here? For the test, anyway? And before you mention it, I'm aware many have said "Do you really want DPC resizing your picture for you?", but on these sites it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference that I can see; the various size renditions seem to remain pretty faithful to each other.

This wouldn't help with the dial-up speed requirements, but it would help those who would otherwise have to scroll.

Robt.
 12/14/2005 01:26:38 PM · #9
Robert - Think the server could handle it? Has been some hiccups as of late...
 12/14/2005 01:29:14 PM · #10
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Robert - Think the server could handle it? Has been some hiccups as of late...


Hell, I donno... it was just "for the sake of argument" as nobody's thrown that possibility into the mix. As far as I'm concerned, the 640 is fine at this stage. I see no compelling reason to change it and plenty of reasons not to, and if a poll were to be set up that's how I'd vote.

R.
 12/14/2005 01:29:18 PM · #11
Originally posted by bear_music:
Just for the sake of argument, I see plenty of sites that have an option for viewing size. Any reason we can't use that here? For the test, anyway? And before you mention it, I'm aware many have said "Do you really want DPC resizing your picture for you?", but on these sites it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference that I can see; the various size renditions seem to remain pretty faithful to each other.

This wouldn't help with the dial-up speed requirements, but it would help those who would otherwise have to scroll.

Robt.


Do the other sites generate the different sizes from a full sized original? The small image on DPCPrints is generated from the full size original and seems to look ok.

My concern is with resizing an already resized image. How well this works probably depends on the image.

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 13:31:16.
 12/14/2005 01:31:31 PM · #12
Originally posted by bear_music:
... Hell, I donno... it was just "for the sake of argument" ...


;^)
 12/14/2005 01:32:52 PM · #13
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Originally posted by bear_music:
... Hell, I donno... it was just "for the sake of argument" ...


;^)


I know that. That's why I asked the question. Answering that question would help in determining if such a setup is feasible here.
 12/14/2005 01:35:35 PM · #14
Originally posted by bear_music:
Hell, I donno... it was just "for the sake of argument" as nobody's thrown that possibility into the mix.


See this conversation where this was discussed. It's technically possible to generate a medium size like the thumb is generated but Terry had a reasonable point that this would be another variable we may not to open. It would help the dial up though cause they could keep the 640 size and people could even submit in the 640 size if they want; just be an added super-size that was available if people wanted it.
 12/14/2005 01:41:07 PM · #15
Originally posted by bear_music:
Just for the sake of argument, I see plenty of sites that have an option for viewing size. Any reason we can't use that here? For the test, anyway? And before you mention it, I'm aware many have said "Do you really want DPC resizing your picture for you?", but on these sites it doesn't seem to make a lot of difference that I can see; the various size renditions seem to remain pretty faithful to each other.

This wouldn't help with the dial-up speed requirements, but it would help those who would otherwise have to scroll.

Robt.


I think the size should stay the way it is for various reasons but Robt brings up a pretty good idea. Have all images submitted at lets say 800x? and in your prefrences you select whether you want images displayed at 640 or 800. This way slower connections or people who like the smaller image could display them how they want. Sounds like a LOT of work for something that seems to me to be not necessary...just going along with the sake of argument.

oh and btw...if the image size is increasing won't you have to increase the file size too and if so how does that effect dial up users or compression if not?

Message edited by author 2005-12-14 13:42:27.
 12/14/2005 01:46:42 PM · #16
[quote=sabphoto] [quote=bear_music] Just for the sake of argument, I see plenty of sites that have an option for viewing size. Any reason we can't use that here? quote]

Terry covered this in brents thread yesterday. It would be unfair to force users to vote on a computer generated image. The programs used to resize these pictures do not always do so smoothly. Okay for gallery viewing but not really for critiquing.

I strongly oppose 2005 being 800x because i want to look at those best of images, and i dont want to be scrolling on them. Nor do i want people scrolling on images they have to vote on. I dont want people in countries that have to pay by the KB having to sit out either because they alkready have enough extra bills at christmas time to need anymore in addition.
 12/14/2005 02:07:03 PM · #17
Just like in the other thread, I don't think dpc needs to make this change.

Another arguement against increasing the size limits that I haven't seen recently is that the larger resolutions are more attractive to those who would steal your work. Seems like theft has been on the increase here lately. We don't need to give the thieves any more incentive.
12/14/2005 04:02:47 PM · #18
Originally posted by coolhar:
Just like in the other thread, I don't think dpc needs to make this change.

Another arguement against increasing the size limits that I haven't seen recently is that the larger resolutions are more attractive to those who would steal your work. Seems like theft has been on the increase here lately. We don't need to give the thieves any more incentive.


If you are concerned about theft then 150K is already at enough detail to feed into fractiles and get a useful file - 250K-ish is not that different.

If that were a serious requirement then people would be watermarking everything across the middle and asking to allow watermarks in challenge entries (I have not seen that... yet :-).
 12/15/2005 12:37:05 PM · #19
Originally posted by robs:
Originally posted by coolhar:
Just like in the other thread, I don't think dpc needs to make this change.

Another arguement against increasing the size limits that I haven't seen recently is that the larger resolutions are more attractive to those who would steal your work. Seems like theft has been on the increase here lately. We don't need to give the thieves any more incentive.


If you are concerned about theft then 150K is already at enough detail to feed into fractiles and get a useful file - 250K-ish is not that different.

If that were a serious requirement then people would be watermarking everything across the middle and asking to allow watermarks in challenge entries (I have not seen that... yet :-).


I have asked if I could watermark or place a copyright on my challenge images, but I was told No. It is because that would detract from the image especially when it is in a competition where asthetics and image detail, composition, etc. are important such that a voter does not wish to see a copyright plastered over the center of the images.

Personally/profesionally, I do not like the idea of going to a larger format because it would be a greater invitation to those who would seek to rip an image. I have a presence at deviantART and I have to say that there has been numerous complaints from artists/photographers that their work has been ripped. Davenit even had that happen to him such that he decreased viewable image size to 400 pixels to discourage the majority of rippers. Yes, people are going to rip no matter what you do, but changing file size to 800x600 just makes it more inviting to those who would rip because it will yield better image quality.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 07:27:33 AM

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 © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/13/2025 07:27:33 AM EDT.