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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> Regarding the Poll to increase challenge size
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 178, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 10/14/2009 04:17:20 PM · #26
Please, please, please increase the sizes across the board. I promise to put my blue shirt back on...
 10/14/2009 04:36:14 PM · #27
I say we should have equality. 800px across the board. One of my biggest complaints is the small dimensions. I find myself leaving comments like, "I don't THINK it's in focus, but I can't tell from the small dimensions".
 10/14/2009 04:37:08 PM · #28
I'm all for the 800 limit. The 640 limit prevented me from entering my best shot for the artificial lighting ... I won't go into why I'm considering using the shot in the free study.
 10/14/2009 04:41:14 PM · #29
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.
 10/14/2009 04:43:50 PM · #30
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.

There is the choice to process at 640 (or whatever the minimum is these days), and hope my 800 doesn't eat it for breakfast. ;-)
 10/14/2009 04:44:01 PM · #31
Is it realistic to suppose that this change will also result in bigger pictures on my screen? The poll was only for the submit size. It didn't say that what I see on the site will change.
 10/14/2009 04:45:27 PM · #32
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.

That's because smaller sizes mask the imperfections in an image.

How many times did a photo look "perfect" on your LCD, only to have it look like Keith Richards when you pulled it up on your computer screen? ;-)


10/14/2009 04:50:05 PM · #33
Originally posted by pixelpig:
Is it realistic to suppose that this change will also result in bigger pictures on my screen? The poll was only for the submit size. It didn't say that what I see on the site will change.


The poll asked if you wanted to go from 720px to 800px. That is the physical size on the screen. There was no mention of file size.
 10/14/2009 04:55:36 PM · #34
Originally posted by LydiaToo:
I'd be happy with 720 for all... but that wasn't one of the questions.


LOL!!!

i agree with 720 pixel idea...
 10/14/2009 05:10:42 PM · #35
I'm for the increase, but I agree that the 640 pixel limit for the opens is a larger issue. Love to see both riased a bit, but it still needs to fit the average screen.
 10/14/2009 05:18:32 PM · #36
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.


I have also noticed the opposite with some photos. I have several that when viewed full size look outstanding, but then resizing to 640, or even 720, takes a lot of detail out of the shot.
 10/14/2009 05:23:39 PM · #37
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by glad2badad:
Changing to 800x800 would suck IMO. Horizontal scrolling issues

Horizontal scrolling for an 800px image? Yikes. Even on my notebook, I wouldn't have any scrolling issues in either direction. How many people are running lower than 1280x1024 these days?

This has been discussed numerous times, with examples...if I wasn't in a hurry to get to my son's soccer game I'd look it up...the issue isn't with the 800px horizontal by itself, it's the other real estate that goes with it on the voting page. Yes, you can hit F11 to get a full screen, etc...but even then it can be tight or cause scrolling. Check out a challenge that's running under Advanced rules, pull up a 720 image that is portrait oriented, and see how much room is left. Not much, if any. Then there's also the issue of standard screen sizes in use. Yes, they've increased over the past few years...was a poll on that also around here somewhere.

Ok...gotta go, cheer for our team, and get some photos while I'm at it. :-)
 10/14/2009 05:51:46 PM · #38
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.


I have also noticed the opposite with some photos. I have several that when viewed full size look outstanding, but then resizing to 640, or even 720, takes a lot of detail out of the shot.

Also, if you sharpen your photo at a large size and then resize it smaller, you'll often get undesirable results. One should always sharpen at the last possible moment (and after resizing).


10/14/2009 05:52:09 PM · #39
I'm okay with the increase to 800 pixels. It will make voting slower for some, but the increase in image detail may be worth it.

What I would rather see is a change to non-anonymous voting. That would stir things up and give us all lots to 'discuss' in the forums. :)


10/14/2009 06:00:55 PM · #40
Screw a pixel size increase if file size isn't increased. 200k isn't enough for DETAILED 720x720 images, so unless the ratio of file size vs. pixel count isn't raised, I say let it be. I quit entering until file size is raised, but I'm the moron who just renewed my membership.
 10/14/2009 06:08:01 PM · #41
with hard drives so cheap these days.....Space is cheap. The computer that I am in the process of building has a terrabyte and it didn't cost much. I don't see that space should be buch of an issue except for upload / download speeds.
 10/14/2009 06:18:00 PM · #42
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
with hard drives so cheap these days.....Space is cheap. The computer that I am in the process of building has a terrabyte and it didn't cost much. I don't see that space should be buch of an issue except for upload / download speeds.

I think they mean space on the DPC servers. How many 300kb images can someone upload per day until they need their host to add a new drive array?
 10/14/2009 07:56:30 PM · #43
Originally posted by david_c:
Originally posted by cowboy221977:
with hard drives so cheap these days.....Space is cheap. The computer that I am in the process of building has a terrabyte and it didn't cost much. I don't see that space should be buch of an issue except for upload / download speeds.

I think they mean space on the DPC servers. How many 300kb images can someone upload per day until they need their host to add a new drive array?


Another factor might be the added bandwidth costs... going to 300kb double the bandwidth for basic, and increase advanced by 50%, which might result in higher costs to run the site.

That being said, I would love to see an increase in filesize as well. As it is now, I am saving some files with as low as 60% quality in order to squeeze it into challenges.

Message edited by author 2009-10-14 19:56:48.
 10/14/2009 07:58:14 PM · #44
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.


I have also noticed the opposite with some photos. I have several that when viewed full size look outstanding, but then resizing to 640, or even 720, takes a lot of detail out of the shot.

Also, if you sharpen your photo at a large size and then resize it smaller, you'll often get undesirable results. One should always sharpen at the last possible moment (and after resizing).


Not necessarily. I follow the Adamus Sharpening technique (Which I learned here at DPC), and found a great way to sharpen a photo, which involves sharpening before resizing to the final desired file size.
 10/14/2009 08:01:53 PM · #45
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.


I have also noticed the opposite with some photos. I have several that when viewed full size look outstanding, but then resizing to 640, or even 720, takes a lot of detail out of the shot.

Also, if you sharpen your photo at a large size and then resize it smaller, you'll often get undesirable results. One should always sharpen at the last possible moment (and after resizing).


Not necessarily. I follow the Adamus Sharpening technique (Which I learned here at DPC), and found a great way to sharpen a photo, which involves sharpening before resizing to the final desired file size.

That's good to know. I haven't used that technique.

That is also why I stated, "...you'll often get undesirable results", and not always. :-)

.



Message edited by author 2009-10-14 20:07:51.
 10/14/2009 08:09:12 PM · #46
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by AperturePriority:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
Originally posted by scarbrd:
While I am all for the size increase, I think many will be surprised at how an image is acceptable at 640px yet won't hold up to 800px.

I went through a lot of that with 1X.com. They allow up to 950px horizonally. Several shots that looked just fine at 640px were not all that hot when processed to 800+.


I have also noticed the opposite with some photos. I have several that when viewed full size look outstanding, but then resizing to 640, or even 720, takes a lot of detail out of the shot.

Also, if you sharpen your photo at a large size and then resize it smaller, you'll often get undesirable results. One should always sharpen at the last possible moment (and after resizing).


Not necessarily. I follow the Adamus Sharpening technique (Which I learned here at DPC), and found a great way to sharpen a photo, which involves sharpening before resizing to the final desired file size.

That's good to know. I haven't used that technique.

That is also why I stated, "...you'll often get undesirable results", and not always. :-)

.


I was gonna mention Adamus Sharpening myself. It's web-specific (sux for print) but it works like a charm.

R.
 10/14/2009 08:14:43 PM · #47
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I was gonna mention Adamus Sharpening myself. It's web-specific (sux for print) ...

Why is that?
 10/14/2009 08:23:54 PM · #48
.

Message edited by author 2009-10-14 20:32:47.
 10/14/2009 08:31:52 PM · #49
I will vote for the pixel size increase in hopes that this means there will also be an increase in KB
limit(s), which is what I would really like to see happen.
I also agree with those who say the 640 basic editing size is the real problem and feel 720 would be fine.
10/14/2009 08:50:43 PM · #50
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I was gonna mention Adamus Sharpening myself. It's web-specific (sux for print) ...

Why is that?


For Adamus, you first resize your image to twice the size you want it to be. Apply the sharpening filter 2 or 3 times. It will be an over sharpened mess at this point. Then, resize to desired size, and it will leave a really nice sharpening to your photo. But, because you are effectively cutting the number of pixels in half, you cant really print anything larger than a 5x7 or 8x10. I also havent tried to print them, so I imagine that they will look over sharpened after printing as well.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:08:33 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 © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/05/2025 05:08:33 PM EDT.