| Author | Thread |
|
|
12/05/2014 10:22:07 AM · #1 |
Originally posted by aliqui:
I say go with the full 1200px. I think the auto-resizing algorithm is working for most people. We need to stop accommodating these tech-slackers. Get with the program, people! There's no good reason you should be still using Windows 2000 and IECaveman. You're just being difficult...  GeneralE! |
Personally, DOS3.0 with a green CRT is my computer of choice for voting on. |
|
|
|
12/05/2014 02:32:43 AM · #2 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by oldbimmercoupe:
they need a time machine so they can go into ansel adams darkroom and see real manipulation! |
Careful, there are a couple of us who have been in Ansel Adams' darkroom, including this Luddlite™ here (though I never saw him "in action" live). That said, I have it on good authority (from one of his assistants) that had Photoshop been around when he was alive "he would have benn all over it" -- maybe even on the splash screen ... |
...and I bet he'd be using at least Windows 7. ;) |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 11:38:48 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by oldbimmercoupe:
they need a time machine so they can go into ansel adams darkroom and see real manipulation! |
Careful, there are a couple of us who have been in Ansel Adams' darkroom, including this Luddlite™ here (though I never saw him "in action" live). That said, I have it on good authority (from one of his assistants) that had Photoshop been around when he was alive "he would have benn all over it" -- maybe even on the splash screen ...
Message edited by author 2014-12-04 23:39:27. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 11:32:04 PM · #4 |
well said!! however ... if you want to get depressed read the thread dealing with "no rules" - we still have many luddites that use the term "manipulated" - oy! the fracking file is PROCESSED. sheesh. they need a time machine so they can go into ansel adams darkroom and see real manipulation!
thanks for posting this.
jim
Originally posted by aliqui:
I say go with the full 1200px. I think the auto-resizing algorithm is working for most people. We need to stop accommodating these tech-slackers. Get with the program, people! There's no good reason you should be still using Windows 2000 and IECaveman. You're just being difficult... GeneralE! |
|
|
|
|
12/04/2014 02:04:38 PM · #5 |
| Hey, I haven't said anything ... besides, I have two images in voting right now that are 1200px high. I think people should submit the largest image they feel comfortable with, and if it scores a lot lower than expected try a shorter one next time. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 01:40:46 PM · #6 |
| I say go with the full 1200px. I think the auto-resizing algorithm is working for most people. We need to stop accommodating these tech-slackers. Get with the program, people! There's no good reason you should be still using Windows 2000 and IECaveman. You're just being difficult... GeneralE! |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 01:33:10 PM · #7 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Any more than 5 pixels is way too many. |
Ha you viewing on a watch?
Thanks for all the advice. 800 sounds like a good option to me. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 01:12:13 PM · #8 |
| Any more than 5 pixels is way too many. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 11:56:30 AM · #9 |
800 is not a bad idea, but 920 to maybe 1024 pixels would fit on my screen w/o scrolling - about in the middle...
I also like 1024 for landscape. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 11:41:11 AM · #10 |
I enter only 800 pixels on portrait orientation. I found that when I was looking at images on my laptop for which I had to scroll, if the top part wasn't interesting enough, sometimes I wouldn't bother scrolling. Lousy thing to do. But at least I was just looking at the time, not voting.
But it makes me wonder whether everyone bothers to scroll if they're not already intrigued enough with the photo.
So I don't take any chances. I stick with 800 portrait. |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 10:51:48 AM · #11 |
My guess is about 80% of voters are using a browser (at least for voting) that automatically resizes or don't mind scrolling to see the whole image before casting a vote. In general, I have chosen 1200 pixels on portrait oriented images.
But that leaves about 20% of the voters who refuse to switch to a site compatible browser (Chrome; Firefox) and are irritated by scrolling to see the entire image.
You have asked a good question. YMMV |
|
|
|
12/04/2014 10:23:41 AM · #12 |
| With the new increased dimensions I believe we can now submit photos with a height of 1200 pixels. However I am curious if for a portrait image this is the ideal height to submit or if it is better to submit a photo with a smaller height to ensure everyone can see it without scrolling. Or perhaps the new code to automatically resize sorts out any potential viewing issues? |
|
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: 04/25/2024 06:11:19 AM EDT.
