| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/26/2007 03:17:45 PM · #1 |
When will we finally get 720px or 800px images. Last poll I can remember had a clear majority in favour of a larger size and since then nothing has happened.
One of the other sites I am active at recently even switched to 1000px wide at 300kb. All the other ones have 800px as default, everyone posts at those sizes and nobody bitches about screen sizes and watermarks.... One of those is even in the copy walhalla of Russia....
It is almost 2008 and we are still at 2002 sizes....
Come on...
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 03:51:43 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:08:07 PM · #3 |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:23:27 PM · #4 |
| yeah but size of the photo does not make it better. I'm for 720 or even 800 however I don't think it is really needed. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:30:57 PM · #5 |
It's not the size that matters...but how you use it!!!
Did I say that??
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:31:22 PM · #6 |
As an alternate viewpoint: I was enlightened to a fact last time I voted for this: There are very good commenters that are still on dial-up.
I do vote YES on the bigger images thing though.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:43:23 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by metatate:
...There are very good commenters that are still on dial-up... |
When I'm driving through the country in Pennsylvania, I don't brake for Quakers. ;-)
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:49:40 PM · #8 |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 04:55:00 PM · #9 |
It seems counterproductive to do this when there is a ton of complaining about photos being stolen and misused. Giving away higher resolution images to the thieves wouldn't be a better idea. I vote for a maximum size of 500 pixels on the long side.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:06:22 PM · #10 |
| i think we should be aloud to have 576000 total square pixels, nomatter how we want it, if someone shoots a awsome shot that looks even sweeter as a panoramic canvis why not let them. 720x800 1080x500 or whatever, as long as it dosnt go beyond 576000 total pixels, i think we should be limited by total pixels not by certian dimensions |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:07:04 PM · #11 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
yeah but size of the photo does not make it better. I'm for 720 or even 800 however I don't think it is really needed. |
Yeah, it does. A lot of the jagged edges that show up on diagonal lines in 640px shots aren't there at 800px. For that alone I'd vote for larger images.
Why don't we just skip the next 270 posts and get to the nut of it
20 people want it
27 people don't
13 people were insulted while discussing it
1 person still wonders when the goddam girls kissing girls challenge is going to pop. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:13:35 PM · #12 |
| why not jack up the total pixels on challenges when were doing landscapes or something that can require a larger area for a photo to be displayed correctly? |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:19:22 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by routerguy666:
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
yeah but size of the photo does not make it better. I'm for 720 or even 800 however I don't think it is really needed. |
Yeah, it does. A lot of the jagged edges that show up on diagonal lines in 640px shots aren't there at 800px. For that alone I'd vote for larger images.
Why don't we just skip the next 270 posts and get to the nut of it
20 people want it
27 people don't
13 people were insulted while discussing it
1 person still wonders when the goddam girls kissing girls challenge is going to pop. |
LOL. Hey put me down for those who want unlimited size. Since obviously those that want the increase don't care about those that have to scroll then they shouldn't mind scrolling themselves when I submit a 3500x35000 pic. :P
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 17:19:59.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:28:50 PM · #14 |
Make it a max of 800 on the width.
Add the option of being able to have a watermark added to your photos after voting is over. i don't think either of these things are very difficult. (but then again neither is having clearly defined challenge descriptions, but that will never happen either...ooops. wrong thread, sorry) |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:30:24 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Nikolai1024:
yeah but size of the photo does not make it better. I'm for 720 or even 800 however I don't think it is really needed. |
It does make a difference. All the photos I took this weekend were amazing at 800+ and, though still decent, are just not the same at 640.
Also, how many times has an amazing thumbnail caught your eye, only to look like crap when viewed at a larger resolution? You can hide a lot of mistakes in a smaller photo when the detail is so small as to be effectively stripped away; larger photos require more careful attention to detail.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:38:06 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. Hey put me down for those who want unlimited size. Since obviously those that want the increase don't care about those that have to scroll then they shouldn't mind scrolling themselves when I submit a 3500x35000 pic. :P |
Only if we can add a checkbox that says "DNFS."
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 05:40:03 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by mk:
Originally posted by yanko:
LOL. Hey put me down for those who want unlimited size. Since obviously those that want the increase don't care about those that have to scroll then they shouldn't mind scrolling themselves when I submit a 3500x35000 pic. :P |
Only if we can add a checkbox that says "DNFS." |
No. Put that in the comments you wuss!
ETA: Wait did I call mk a wuss? Crap!
Message edited by author 2007-09-26 17:41:22.
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:05:54 PM · #18 |
| I wouldn't mind 720px. I would actually very much welcome it, even if the max files size of 150kb stays the same. Some shots just dont look as good at 640 and I even hesistated to enter those few in challenges. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:15:41 PM · #19 |
lets just vote on the thumbs - that will save a ton of bandwidth, and make for some surprises when the voting is over and you can see the full 640px version... ;}
yanko best find rock to hide under...
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:56:09 PM · #20 |
| Whether or not we make the change to a larger size will determine if I decide to renew my membership again. We have had multiple (read MEANINGLESS) polls that begged for larger sizes...and we've been ignored. How much longer, D&L? |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 06:56:16 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Make it a max of 800 on the width.
Add the option of being able to have a watermark added to your photos after voting is over. i don't think either of these things are very difficult. (but then again neither is having clearly defined challenge descriptions, but that will never happen either...ooops. wrong thread, sorry) |
So only give the advantage of a larger image to landscape oriented photos?
|
|
|
|
09/26/2007 07:04:44 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Make it a max of 800 on the width.
Add the option of being able to have a watermark added to your photos after voting is over. i don't think either of these things are very difficult. (but then again neither is having clearly defined challenge descriptions, but that will never happen either...ooops. wrong thread, sorry) |
So only give the advantage of a larger image to landscape oriented photos? |
Just because most people (the vast majority according to stats) use a 1024x768 screen resolution, and even more these days have wide screen monitors so it is even wider, but the point being that 800 vertical would cause a lot of scrolling. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 07:09:29 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by basssman7:
Originally posted by cpanaioti:
Originally posted by basssman7:
Make it a max of 800 on the width.
Add the option of being able to have a watermark added to your photos after voting is over. i don't think either of these things are very difficult. (but then again neither is having clearly defined challenge descriptions, but that will never happen either...ooops. wrong thread, sorry) |
So only give the advantage of a larger image to landscape oriented photos? |
Just because most people (the vast majority according to stats) use a 1024x768 screen resolution, and even more these days have wide screen monitors so it is even wider, but the point being that 800 vertical would cause a lot of scrolling. |
Ya, but that's not my point. The point is that expanding only the width would give advantage to landscape oriented image over portrait oriented ones.
Now, if there were to be a challenge where only landscape oriented images would be acceptable then expanding the width to 800 for that challenge would work. |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 07:29:01 PM · #24 |
I've heard size doesn't matter!!! Oh wait.. maybe that wasn't about photography!! My bad.. carry on..
;)~ |
|
|
|
09/26/2007 07:34:26 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Shecoya:
I've heard size doesn't matter!!! Oh wait.. maybe that wasn't about photography!! My bad.. carry on..
;)~ |
If size didn't matter, Ron Jeremy wouldn't be famous :| |
|
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: 08/28/2025 06:24:50 PM EDT.
