| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/28/2005 02:09:48 AM · #1 |
Hi all,
About 7 months ago, I wrote a suggestion to upgrade the photo size from the currently limited 640 pixels to 800 pixels. You can view the original and very divided in opinions 7 page thread HERE.
Well, here I am, back with the same suggestion, but with a twist.
Keep the 640 pixels limit for the Non-Members Challenges, and upgrade the Members Challenges to 800 pixels.
I honestly beleive upsizing the images is a necessity. 800, although still a small size IMHO, will definitely offer more possibilities to photographers in the selection of their photos, and a more pleasurable experience to the viewer. If only to get more detail in the photos!!! Which in return will undoubtably have the positive side effect of offering more posibilities when it comes to selecting what image to post. I mean, how many times have you decided to go with a shot that contained a closeup instead of the nice large view of pretty much the same shot, because you knew at 640 pixels the wider view would not have the same impact on the viewer?
Now, I already hear the ANTI-800 CLUB protesting.
"WHAT ABOUT SCREEN RESOLUTION?" - the thought here being, some might not see the image at full size, and they might have to scroll to view it all, thus diminishing the pleasant experience.
To this I say:
a) there are ways the gallery could be presented that scrolling would not be necessery
b) If your screen is still at 800x600, it is seriously time you upgrade your dynosaur, especially if you are mildly serious about taking photos.
c) 1024x768 is the screen resolution standard nowadays, and many people are even on a larger resolution than that.
"LARGER PHOTOS WILL TAKE MORE SERVER SPACE".
To this I say: Did you try to compress a 800 pixel JPG to 150k? I'll be damned if you could spot it from a 800 pixel JPG compressed at 200k, especially when votnig on 350 photos in a challenge. Bottom line is: 800 pixels does not have to take more server space. They certainly can be offered at 150k, just like the current limit with 640 pixels.
"BUT, WHAT ABOUT IMAGE THEFT?"
What about it? I mean, 800 pixels is not large enough for real concern about print image theft. If you are concerned about internet image theft, then you should already be concerned with the photos posted at 640 pixels. Between 640 and 800 pixels, someone who sees your photo online and wants it will copy it to his hard drive anyway.
Seriously folks, don't you think it's time to showcase your artwork like it derserves to be viewed?
I think 800 pixels is the real minimum.
As a member, I'd like to see that.
My two cents.
See you in six months when I post my suggestion again. LOL. Just kidding.
Thanks for your time.
Martin
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:21:55 AM · #2 |
I am against increasing image size to 800... my biggest arguement against it is that it would disproportionally affect non dslr owners more than the others. With 640 you can get away with a lot of things but i feel with that 800 pixels which is a 150% increase in terms of pixel number (800x800 vs 640x640) a lot of camera limitations will begin to manifest.
Plus people would need to scroll to view portrait images and thats not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:35:53 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by nico_blue:
I am against increasing image size to 800... my biggest arguement against it is that it would disproportionally affect non dslr owners more than the others. With 640 you can get away with a lot of things but i feel with that 800 pixels which is a 150% increase in terms of pixel number (800x800 vs 640x640) a lot of camera limitations will begin to manifest.
Plus people would need to scroll to view portrait images and thats not a good thing. |
Maybe I missed something, but isn't he touting an 800 pixel MAXIMUM? As opposed to 800 pixel REQUIREMENT? I would expect you're still free to use 640 or less if desired, but the highest would be 800 for people who want it.
I agree that this is a good idea and I guarantee I'd sign up as a member if that's what it took to get the extra size. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:42:18 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by rebelo:
I would expect you're still free to use 640 or less if desired, |
Yes you could if you wanted to consistently score below 4.00.
bazz.
Message edited by author 2005-04-28 02:42:38. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:42:54 AM · #5 |
As much as I love a larger resolution size, our shots will be that much more prone to being snagged.
Resizing a 640x480 upwards with 150K or less to work with helps our images from being swiped. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 02:53:23 AM · #6 |
Could we try just 1 challenge at 800px maximum? If it works, then we could keep it? If not, then your proposal may wait another 7 months ;).
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 03:02:04 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by Zoomdak:
Could we try just 1 challenge at 800px maximum? If it works, then we could keep it? If not, then your proposal may wait another 7 months ;). |
I agree or better still put it to a vote. I put images on another site that increased it's sizes from 640 to 800 and it the difference in detail and image quality was significantly better |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 03:09:14 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by keegbow:
I agree or better still put it to a vote. I put images on another site that increased it's sizes from 640 to 800 and it the difference in detail and image quality was significantly better |
Or vote for a one trial challenge of 800 size images. Then there could be a vote after that to see what people thought of it, and that would decide a switch or not.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 03:23:19 AM · #9 |
I like the idea of larger photos. But I like the idea of a trial challenge and voter feedback before it is implemented.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 03:36:05 AM · #10 |
I'm all for it too.
Originally posted by kpriest:
I like the idea of larger photos. But I like the idea of a trial challenge and voter feedback before it is implemented. |
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 03:39:31 AM · #11 |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 03:40:00 AM · #12 |
| Norway's equal to DPC is www.foto.no allow 1024 x 768 (but it can't be more than 768 in height) and up to 250 kb. Much better for showcasing crisp and clear pictures. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 03:52:13 AM · #13 |
This is a fantastic idea, as I said many months ago in the previous thread. Images for print are useless at less than 200 PPI and almost nothing 800x800 is going to look very appealing printed even on a post card. Sure there are exceptions but for the most part, (99.999995%) image theft is absolutley no reason not to up the size. I'm with DrJones on the monitor size as well, if you are still running 800x600 (and nobody even in the third world is) its time to upgrade. On my monitor I run 1600x1200 and the pictures appear tiny. In fact I have to change my resolution down to 1024x768 to get a good look at them.
And disk space is dirt, dirt, dirt cheap, less than 20 cents a gig now so uping the size limt to 200k or more should be no issue. I really think we should at least try it. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 04:25:01 AM · #14 |
I would like to point out that 800x600 is about half a megapixel. If you had a 1.3 megapixel PDA, you'd still have room to crop. Do we honestly have people using point-and-shoots smaller than 2 megapixels, anyway?
I also have a hard time seeing 800x600 being so much more desirable than 640x480 that one would get stolen a lot more than the other. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 06:32:43 AM · #15 |
YES TO EIGHT HUNDRED!!!
i can't count how many images i've seen and shared that never made it to challenges because of the detail loss at 640. in this past free study, there were too many images that really deserved to be seen larger.
Originally posted by BradP:
As much as I love a larger resolution size, our shots will be that much more prone to being snagged.
Resizing a 640x480 upwards with 150K or less to work with helps our images from being swiped. |
i think i'm going to have to disagree with you on this, brad. if a commercial concern 'snags' your image, you can go after them. if you find your image being used on the web, you can go after them.
keep in mind what we're shooting for in the first place: a challenge. sure, a ribbon-winner will get the views, and might get some print sales, but i don't see there being enough 'swiping' to really do damage. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 06:53:53 AM · #16 |
[quote=skiprow] YES TO EIGHT HUNDRED!!!
commercial concern 'snags' your image, you can go after them. if you find your image being used on the web, you can go after them.
Greetings,
I think you've raised the key issue here Skiprow, "IF you find your image" with the size of the web, short of say AP or UP or a major entity like Kellogs staeling your images, what are the odds of ever knowing it had been swiped?? One more reason in my mind to not take the chance and keep the images small, also helps out the dial-up-ers some.
Mike
//www.mikefairbanks.com
Message edited by author 2005-04-28 06:54:06.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 07:06:47 AM · #17 |
Well I don't think the dial up argument really works - considering it's not a big difference in file sizes we are talking about here ... (I'd say at most the admin's would increase to 200k) just the area of screen taken up, so it doesn't take any longer to download the images. As for theft, sure, it's a legitimate concern... but as people have mentioned a 72 dpi web image isn't going to be worthwhile for printing, and a 640 pixel image is plenty big enough for a theif to put on a web site or whatever, so it likely won't make a huge difference in that respect.
So as it stands, I think we should have a trial of the whole thing on a couple of challenges - see how it goes, and perhaps put it to a vote afterwards.
Though I'll definately acknowledge nico's argument
Originally posted by nico_blue:
I am against increasing image size to 800... my biggest arguement against it is that it would disproportionally affect non dslr owners more than the others. With 640 you can get away with a lot of things |
- there are an awful lot of users here with lower end camera's (I was one of them til very recently) and increasing the image size is going to make the difference in image quality far more apparent, thus further unbalancing the playing field.
Message edited by author 2005-04-28 07:08:42. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 07:35:22 AM · #18 |
Originally posted by mfairbanks:
Originally posted by skiprow:
YES TO EIGHT HUNDRED!!! |
short of say AP or UP or a major entity like Kellogs staeling your images, what are the odds of ever knowing it had been swiped?? One more reason in my mind to not take the chance and keep the images small |
ok, if your image is swiped, and you don't know about it, you've been damaged in principle, and possibly financially. if you find out about it, you do something about it.
if you have a challenge entry that you think has significant value (and is a good target for swiping), you could either submit it at 640 (or smaller), or choose to skip the challenge, and submit it to a stock agency.
i think we should have the choice to take the risk. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 07:49:32 AM · #19 |
I think this is a great idea - YES TO EIGHT HUNDRED!!!
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 07:58:39 AM · #20 |
If the file size stays at 150K, then ok. If not, then I say no. As it is with 150k it takes me forever to try and vote with a 40 kbps dial-up connection.
Another downside is trying to view images after they've loaded and having to scroll up & down to see the entire image. Even at 640 with a 19" (1280 x 1024 resolution) monitor you can barely fit the image in the viewing area.
As for "testing" this for one challenge, I'm not sure how everything is coded at DPC...if the javascript and any CSS styling is set to be dynamic it won't be an issue, but there could be (I say could be) some coding issues to change the form that displays images for voting and regular viewing.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 08:08:32 AM · #21 |
Image theft has never really been the major issue for me. For me, the issue is site useability. I have a smaller monitor and can't comfortably go to higher resolution. As is now, I have to scroll a bit on some images when I vote. At 800 pixels, I'll have to go left/right in addition to up/down. That makes it a lot less fun to vote.
On the other side, when I vote at a house where the user has a larger monitor the pictures are awfully tiny. So there is an appeal in the larger image sizes.
But the thing that makes DPC so appealing overall is the universal useability of the site. Before we consider making this kind of change, we'd need to make sure that it doesn't render it unusable for a significant percentage of the population. Not a majority mind you, but if by making this change 20% of the users on the site are negatively impacted I'd say it's not the world's best idea.
We are all kind of caught as people transition from older monitors and technology to newer. It''s not fair to penalize those with older computers or older cameras.
Clara
(edited out random thought that actually belonged in the body of the post. Whoops!)
Message edited by author 2005-04-28 08:11:05.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 08:08:36 AM · #22 |
| While I can understand your concern over file size gladtobebad... I should probably point out that we must have very diffent monitors - On my 19 inch if I set it at 1280 x 1024 a 640 image appears quite small -i can fit about 1.5 640 shot's in the screen even in portrait orientation. And of course there is always the useful option of hitting f11 and view in full screen mode, in which case the available space increases further. |
|
|
|
04/28/2005 08:11:23 AM · #23 |
Originally posted by DrJOnes:
Hi all,
About 7 months ago, I wrote a suggestion to upgrade the photo size from the currently limited 640 pixels to 800 pixels. You can view the original and very divided in opinions 7 page thread HERE.
Well, here I am, back with the same suggestion, but with a twist.
Keep the 640 pixels limit for the Non-Members Challenges, and upgrade the Members Challenges to 800 pixels.
I honestly beleive upsizing the images is a necessity. 800, although still a small size IMHO, will definitely offer more possibilities to photographers in the selection of their photos, and a more pleasurable experience to the viewer. If only to get more detail in the photos!!! Which in return will undoubtably have the positive side effect of offering more posibilities when it comes to selecting what image to post. I mean, how many times have you decided to go with a shot that contained a closeup instead of the nice large view of pretty much the same shot, because you knew at 640 pixels the wider view would not have the same impact on the viewer?
Now, I already hear the ANTI-800 CLUB protesting.
"WHAT ABOUT SCREEN RESOLUTION?" - the thought here being, some might not see the image at full size, and they might have to scroll to view it all, thus diminishing the pleasant experience.
To this I say:
a) there are ways the gallery could be presented that scrolling would not be necessery
b) If your screen is still at 800x600, it is seriously time you upgrade your dynosaur, especially if you are mildly serious about taking photos.
c) 1024x768 is the screen resolution standard nowadays, and many people are even on a larger resolution than that.
"LARGER PHOTOS WILL TAKE MORE SERVER SPACE".
To this I say: Did you try to compress a 800 pixel JPG to 150k? I'll be damned if you could spot it from a 800 pixel JPG compressed at 200k, especially when votnig on 350 photos in a challenge. Bottom line is: 800 pixels does not have to take more server space. They certainly can be offered at 150k, just like the current limit with 640 pixels.
"BUT, WHAT ABOUT IMAGE THEFT?"
What about it? I mean, 800 pixels is not large enough for real concern about print image theft. If you are concerned about internet image theft, then you should already be concerned with the photos posted at 640 pixels. Between 640 and 800 pixels, someone who sees your photo online and wants it will copy it to his hard drive anyway.
Seriously folks, don't you think it's time to showcase your artwork like it derserves to be viewed?
I think 800 pixels is the real minimum.
As a member, I'd like to see that.
My two cents.
See you in six months when I post my suggestion again. LOL. Just kidding.
Thanks for your time.
Martin |
agreed
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 08:11:40 AM · #24 |
I score 4 and below most of the time anyway..so I don't see how changing would hurt me much. I'm all for it! Make the change...you have my vote.
|
|
|
|
04/28/2005 08:13:34 AM · #25 |
Let's be honest and realistic here... How many of you would incur tangible financial loss by having a few people use your 800 pixel image as a desktop, or an unauthorized backdrop on their web page? Worse yet, let's assume they print a 72dpi post card from an 800 pixel image... Do you really think they'll steal your customers? Do you really think your work will become so widespread in theft that it's an issue?
Taking it a step further, if you are a serious photographer earning money from it, what percentage of your work would actually be at risk in DPC challenges? For example, I take over 100 images per week. If I entered EVERY challenge I'd have a rediculously low risk threshold. If your percentage of images at risk on DPC is high, then you most likely aren't making tangible money from that work. In addition, if you are in a position to legitimately loose money (real money - not a .05 RF stock fee) from an 800 pixel image's unauthorized use, then you probably already have the legal means to protect your work.
The purpose of this site is to learn about photography by sharing work in a diverse series of themes. When resampling a 6mp image down to 150k, or even 200k, it's easy to hide technical problems that otherwise would be resolved, and it's keeping us from fully enjoying the beauty and detail captured in each other's work.
There is no advantage to dSLRs here. To see a difference between 4 and 6 mp you would need to veiw at 100%, which *no one* has a monitor large enough for. My D70 and my Powershot both would need massive resampling to get down to 800px. Even my old 3.1mp camera needed resampling to get that low. I don't see this one as an excuse.
I have to agree with Dr. O. It's in our best interest to move to 800 pixels, and the positives far outweigh the negatives and inflated hypothtical risks.
|
|
