| Author | Thread |
|
|
04/07/2004 06:11:39 PM · #1 |
There are a number of photos in the wheel challenge that seem very small to me. Looking at past challenges it would appear that there are often a few very small images. I am trying to understand why someone would submit an image that is far smaller then it needs to be, any ideas?
Scott
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 06:15:17 PM · #2 |
Yea,...it's probably new users who have their first submissions and resized in the wrong way.
Message edited by author 2004-04-07 18:15:25.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 06:19:01 PM · #3 |
Some people have cameras that take small shots!
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 06:22:55 PM · #4 |
Originally posted by justine:
Some people have cameras that take small shots! |
Not that small! The maximum size of 640(x480) is only 0.3 Mpixels, even digital videocamera's have more.
Message edited by author 2004-04-07 18:23:32. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 07:20:33 PM · #5 |
isn't there a minium size of 160 pixels? are they below that?
If too big, does the site resize to something small? |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 07:48:16 PM · #6 |
It's obvious something needs to be done to teach new members about resizing. Tiny pictures is one issue. I've also noticed many that are badly over-compressed and have lost a lot of detail. Some people are losing out on what could be high-scoring pictures because they aren't being shown to their full advantage.
And no, bestagents, the site doesn't resize pictures. I remember in the early days when pictures had to be either 640x480 or 640x427, having their software reject a picture because I was out by one pixel in one direction.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:13:12 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
isn't there a minium size of 160 pixels? are they below that?
If too big, does the site resize to something small? |
Nope, you resize it yourself. It gets rejected if its too big in dimension and/or file size.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:15:12 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by bestagents:
isn't there a minium size of 160 pixels? are they below that?
If too big, does the site resize to something small? |
my first camera was like that! sony fd 75. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:20:06 PM · #9 |
| Some people may not know how to resize or have the program, so they take a shot at the smallest settings so they don't have to resize. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:24:59 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Some people may not know how to resize or have the program, so they take a shot at the smallest settings so they don't have to resize. |
I really don't think this is responsible for most of the "tiny" submissions. I'm seeing some that are 3XX by 2XX px, and this is smaller than almost any camera does as an in-camera setting.
I think soome folks may just be resizing downward until they get below 150k, not realizing that they can also play with the compression.
There's a whole other class of submissions that are 640px on the long side, but have file sizes <50k (I've even seen <30k!). The JPEG artifacts are horrendous! Some of these I think were processed in the "free" version of NeatImage, which saves at a really high compression setting, yielding generally crappy results.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:25:37 PM · #11 |
| Sometimes someone might have to crop a small part out of the frame, and would rather leave it small than upsample and perhaps degrade the quality even more. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:27:32 PM · #12 |
| If it's small, why not comment on the picture and give them a how to get a larger more desirable image. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:38:42 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
If it's small, why not comment on the picture and give them a how to get a larger more desirable image. |
Because they may have done it deliberately or out of "necessity" (as I wrote previosly), and giving them a "how-to lesson" in a comment forever attached to that photo will probably be resented as condescending ... commenting that you'd find the photo more appealing if larger is just an opinion and fine by me. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:41:10 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by nicoledb:
Originally posted by justine:
Some people have cameras that take small shots! |
Not that small! The maximum size of 640(x480) is only 0.3 Mpixels, even digital videocamera's have more. |
Not so. 640x480 is pretty big if you have a camera that only shoots a picture that is 2"x2". I had one and it did not look good as big as you say. The best size was 200 and below for dimensions.
|
|
|
|
04/07/2004 08:45:10 PM · #15 |
| 640x480 pixels x 24-bit RGB color = 900k (actual, uncompressed size). This IS the standard size of a regular video frame. |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 09:15:09 PM · #16 |
Please note: I have no clue what I'm talking about, just thinking out loud about small sized pictures.
What if you were using a digital phone? Digital key ring camera, toy type or a PC camera? |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 09:17:11 PM · #17 |
| Its most likely new members, on my first challenge i made the same mistake... |
|
|
|
04/07/2004 10:54:21 PM · #18 |
There was a useful discussion here about resizing your photos to the web that can be read by clicking here.
|
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:15:05 PM · #19 |
| I'd rather nobody told the noobs, that way higher scores for others who resize and compress correctly, heeeheeeheee. |
|
|
|
04/09/2004 01:22:53 PM · #20 |
| I'm a newby, and same as elsapo, I made the same mistake on my first entry - and took a beating :) Oh well... live and learn, right |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/18/2024 07:52:45 PM EDT.
