| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/17/2009 11:23:10 AM · #126 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Jac:
We're talking image size, not technological advances in monitor resolution. Frankly some images on this site should be as small as they can, and others look good in a larger size. Size does NOT matter when it comes to a beautifully crafted image. |
Unfortunately, that's not true. The bottom line is that some sorts of images are at a disadvantage in DPC because of the limited file size. Ultra-wide shots with lots of fine detail don't work as well as they should in the smaller formats; the detail gets so small it's literally lost in the pixels. The cameras can resolve all this incredible detail, and the screens can show it, but not at 640 pixels.
A lot of us think there's a REASON the higher DPC scores tend to go to very smooth, saturated images, and this is a big part of it. The smaller the allowed image size, the more we are "selecting" towards simple, 1-dimensional imagery.
R. |
I was gonna say that! Go away from DPC for months, find a thread to which I have something constructive to add, and then find that Robert has beaten me by a matter of minutes. Typical.
Anyway it's not a competition; I'm just going to go breathe into a paper bag.
Message edited by author 2009-10-17 11:25:04. |
|
|
|
10/17/2009 11:50:59 AM · #127 |
The bottom line is that the resolution and file size standards seemed to be based upon a time where we all had 800x600 monitors and 56k modems.
If you still have that combination then I genuinely feel sorry for you, but the times are changing, and DPC needs to move with the times.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2009 12:10:26 PM · #128 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
[quote=Jac]The smaller the allowed image size, the more we are "selecting" towards simple, 1-dimensional imagery. |
Which dimension would that be? Width, height, or depth? ;)
Seriously, I understand the point you're making, and I agree that the size limitations we have tend to favor uncomplicated eye-candy images. Such is the nature of the beast though. To do well here, your photo must meet certain requirements and one of the requirements is that it must be within a certain size range. No doubt that's always going to be true. The size limits may change, but they will always be part of the equation. And I'm sure you realize that there's always going to be those who are dissatisfied with the limits, whatever they may be. I imagine it's possible that the size limits, whatever they are, will always be better suited to certain types of images too.
|
|
|
|
10/17/2009 12:19:34 PM · #129 |
If there was an option to vote for increasing the 640px to 720px for Basic Challenges, I'd be all over that one. For sure. For me, 720px is fine for portait oriented images and find it contains enough detail for landscape(landscape oriented)type images. Just find myself using the square crop more than I would've liked for Basic Editing challenges to get the detail to come out. Don't feel quite comfortable just yet with posting all of my images at 800px, and don't want to be penalized by the voters if I stick to 720px. Hopefully the image will speak for itself.
So in the end if 800px is finalized, please update basic to 720px. I understand there has to be an incentive for folks wanting to upgrade to member status, and it's up to the Admins to decided if the other Advanced Editing options are enough. Thanks.
Message edited by author 2009-10-17 12:42:31. |
|
|
|
10/17/2009 02:11:44 PM · #130 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
General-1
K10DGuy-0
8>) |
Originally posted by K10DGuy:
btw. Your posts have been weirder than usual lately. You ok? |
Let me ponder that a sec......
Okay.....
If I *am* weirder, would *I* know that???
Or whether or not I'm okay?
And what kind of weirder??
Weird good, or weird bad?
8>) |
|
|
|
10/17/2009 02:26:24 PM · #131 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
8>) |
The increasingly frequent appearance of the pop-eyed smiley makes me concerned that you may have developed Grave's Disease, of which exophthalmia is the most obvious sign ... ;-) |
|
|
|
10/17/2009 02:45:58 PM · #132 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
8>) |
The increasingly frequent appearance of the pop-eyed smiley makes me concerned that you may have developed Grave's Disease, of which exophthalmia is the most obvious sign ... ;-) |
Umm....that's supposed to signify the glasses I wear.
Back in a sec.....have to go Google exophtgr...exopthfre.....exopth.....screw it, I'm copyin' and pastin' it! |
|
|
|
10/17/2009 02:52:59 PM · #133 |
I'm back!
Grave's Disease....
Anxiety -Nope, nope, nope, nope
Breast enlargement in men (possible) -Yes
Difficulty concentrating -What?????
Double vision -both of them!
Eyeballs that stick out (exophthalmos)-Marty Feldman was my hero!
Eye irritation and tearing -I always thought that was my allergies!!!!
Fatigue -ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Frequent bowel movements -NOT going there!
Goiter (possible) -I used to have a goiter.....blew third gear in it and had it towed away....
Heat intolerance -But I *like* being naked!
Increased appetite -Yum!
Increased sweating -Pass the right guard!
Insomnia -Nope! I can drop off for a power nap anywhere.
Menstrual irregularities in women -Yep! I'm *always* on the rag!
Muscle weakness -I'm just soft!
Nervousness What? What?
Rapid or irregular heartbeat (palpitations or arrhythmia) -Like a three toed tree sloth!
Restlessness and difficulty sleeping -Nope-see nap above.
Shortness of breath with exertion -Uh....I call that old age.
Tremor Just a little.....with fear, mostly
Weight loss (rarely, weight gain) -I'm safe!
|
|
|
|
10/17/2009 03:22:57 PM · #134 |
I'm all for the 800 or bigger, but I'd rather see a limit on the total width + height, say 1500 pixels to use however you want, but with some maximum (or is it minimum?) aspect ratio like 4:1 to prevent pics from going too wide or too tall. Would let you do 1200 x 300 for those wide panoramas that lose detail even at 720, or 750 x 750 for the extreme flower macros where a square crop really helps.
ETA cuz I'm math challenged. Max permitted sizes and ratios would have to be tweaked after further thought, but you get the idea.
Message edited by author 2009-10-17 15:29:54. |
|
|
|
10/17/2009 04:16:25 PM · #135 |
1x is what... 950 wide x 800 high? Let's follow their example, big is beautiful! (And set the kB-limit so high hat it never ever limits the beauty of the photo (like 1 MB).)
Another thing that 1x got right: DARK is beautiful! Please, DPC needs some "burning" to stay fresh! And, just like the small format does, I think that the current bright colour scheme of DPC also biases voting towards high contrast images.
But of course, as mentioned in another thread - 1x is also very biased, perhaps due to their choice of size and surrounding colour scheme?
|
|
|
|
10/17/2009 04:58:15 PM · #136 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Grave's Disease....
Anxiety -Nope, nope, nope, nope
Breast enlargement in men (possible) -Yes
Difficulty concentrating -What?????
Double vision -both of them!....... |
I was about to cut-n-paste the word myself (as I had NO CLUE) what the heck it meant. Thanks. |
|
|
|
10/17/2009 06:49:02 PM · #137 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Grave's Disease....
Anxiety -Nope, nope, nope, nope
Breast enlargement in men (possible) -Yes
Difficulty concentrating -What?????
Double vision -both of them!....... |
Originally posted by NathanW:
I was about to cut-n-paste the word myself (as I had NO CLUE) what the heck it meant. Thanks. |
What's REALLY weird is that though I'm over 50, consider vocabulary a hobby, have read voraciously ALL my life....I have never heard of it 'til today.
Two hours ago, the book I'm reading tagged the heroine with it.....
DO DO DO DOOOOOOOOOO! (Cue creepy Twilight Zone music....) |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 12:48:23 AM · #138 |
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Originally posted by NikonJeb:
Grave's Disease....
Anxiety -Nope, nope, nope, nope
Breast enlargement in men (possible) -Yes
Difficulty concentrating -What?????
Double vision -both of them!....... |
Originally posted by NathanW:
I was about to cut-n-paste the word myself (as I had NO CLUE) what the heck it meant. Thanks. |
What's REALLY weird is that though I'm over 50, consider vocabulary a hobby, have read voraciously ALL my life....I have never heard of it 'til today.
Two hours ago, the book I'm reading tagged the heroine with it.....
DO DO DO DOOOOOOOOOO! (Cue creepy Twilight Zone music....) |
There is an actual, scientific name for that kind of occurrence. I can never remember it though. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 01:55:51 AM · #139 |
The arrogance of those who demand everyone buy new monitors to keep up with them just ... stuns me.
I run my monitor at 1440x900. I can't see 720-pixel high images without scrolling because the browser, OS, and DPC's header bar all take up some of those pixels. This is a 2-year-old laptop, not something from the 90s. I'm not about to buy a new computer just because of DPC, or just because someone else thinks it's imperative to buy new hardware constantly.
That's why I'm voting against. If it were 800x720, with some layout changes on the voting page, I'd be for it.
I have no problem with people who want to go bigger, regardless of why. You're entitled. But the snottiness about "ancient monitors" and rude assumptions about people's desire or ability to upgrade is just ridiculous.
Message edited by author 2009-10-18 02:03:50. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 02:05:07 AM · #140 |
Originally posted by levyj413:
I run my monitor at 1440x900. I can't see 720-pixel high images without scrolling because the browser and OS take up some of those pixels. This is a 2-year-old laptop, not something from the 90s. |
My new laptop is 1440x900 also (all I could afford) on a 17-inch screen. I can see all of an 800-pixel image if I use F11 to hide the browser stuff, piece of cake. That's what I do when I'm voting on advanced challenges now, just hit F11 when I am voting, works great.
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 02:59:20 PM · #141 |
For the record, I'm in favor of the larger size.
But I'm wondering why we have a size limit at all. Seems to me voters would punish images that got too big and things would take care of them selves.
If it's storage that's a concern, set a new limit, say 300K. If images got too big, jpg compression would hurt them and voters would punish images that got too big. Again, things would take care of themselves.
I'm a free market kind of guy. The poll is dramatically in favor of a larger size. "The people have spoken." Nothing's forever. Let's give it a try and if big images are punished by voters, well, we'll see fewer and fewer of them. No harm done. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 03:26:13 PM · #142 |
Originally posted by Techo:
...so in the end if 800px is finalized, please update basic to 720px. |
Yes, please! |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 03:39:38 PM · #143 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
But I'm wondering why we have a size limit at all. Seems to me voters would punish images that got too big and things would take care of them selves. |
I think most of the naysayers are worried about the opposite: that the SMALLER images will get punished...
R. |
|
|
|
10/18/2009 04:45:07 PM · #144 |
Originally posted by IreneM:
Originally posted by Techo:
...so in the end if 800px is finalized, please update basic to 720px. |
Yes, please! |
that would be real nice :) |
|
|
|
10/19/2009 09:38:09 PM · #145 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
But I'm wondering why we have a size limit at all. Seems to me voters would punish images that got too big and things would take care of them selves. |
I think most of the naysayers are worried about the opposite: that the SMALLER images will get punished...
R. |
Interesting you mention this. It doesn't seem so to me. And in any event, all cameras today are fully capable of taking photos way bigger than 800x800, even the pitiful camera in my iPhone. If folks are worried about punishing photos smaller than that, all that's needed is to size and sample them nearer to the 800 pixel dimension(s).
Looking at the poll results, it seems "the people have spoken." I urge D&L and the Site Council to adopt the larger size.
And I'm still wondering why we have size limits at all. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 06:31:25 AM · #146 |
I have to vote against this. I love high-resolution photos, and there are plenty of pictures that just don't look good below a certain size, but going to 800 pixels strikes me as risky. Unless image theft has ceased to be a problem, providing a steady supply of higher-quality images makes them even more attractive to steal.
One of the benefits of the 640/720px standard is that images are too low-quality to be worth stealing. People stole them anyway. 800px isn't much bigger, but for a lot of things that's enough. |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 08:05:43 AM · #147 |
Originally posted by mycelium:
I have to vote against this. I love high-resolution photos, and there are plenty of pictures that just don't look good below a certain size, but going to 800 pixels strikes me as risky. Unless image theft has ceased to be a problem, providing a steady supply of higher-quality images makes them even more attractive to steal.
One of the benefits of the 640/720px standard is that images are too low-quality to be worth stealing. People stole them anyway. 800px isn't much bigger, but for a lot of things that's enough. |
Images will ALWAYS be "stolen" as long as their posted on the web. If you want to keep your priceless works of art safe, lock them away at home on your personal, well secured hard drive. That is such a crap argument. Stolen...give me a break. Even IF you image is used, or hell, even printed, what have YOU lost? Yeah, I know...principle. Pffffft.
|
|
|
|
10/22/2009 08:10:33 AM · #148 |
Originally posted by IreneM:
Originally posted by Techo:
...so in the end if 800px is finalized, please update basic to 720px. |
Yes, please! |
I agree with this with a passion, 640 is just silly
800 for advanced
720 for basic
and a partridge in a pear tree
yo ho ho |
|
|
|
10/22/2009 08:27:29 AM · #149 |
Originally posted by MAK:
Originally posted by IreneM:
Originally posted by Techo:
...so in the end if 800px is finalized, please update basic to 720px. |
Yes, please! |
I agree with this with a passion, 640 is just silly
800 for advanced
720 for basic
and a partridge in a pear tree
yo ho ho |
One more vote for this!!
|
|
|
|
10/22/2009 05:38:26 PM · #150 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
Originally posted by MAK:
Originally posted by IreneM:
Originally posted by Techo:
...so in the end if 800px is finalized, please update basic to 720px. |
Yes, please! |
I agree with this with a passion, 640 is just silly
800 for advanced
720 for basic
and a partridge in a pear tree
yo ho ho |
One more vote for this!! |
Same here. It only seems logical to go forward with this.
But now that I have 2 widescreen panels why not make the width 3200 pixels. :D harhar |
|
