| Author | Thread |
|
|
03/06/2006 08:48:45 AM · #151 |
Originally posted by Falc:
I don't see any advantage in 800*800 or anything above 150k.
640 is just fine, gives enough detail to vote but not enough to be usefully stolen.
Stick with 640 - thread now closed. |
Agreed.
Now, is this thread ready for another 4 month (or longer) nap?
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:49:45 AM · #152 |
If Imagemagick was used to resize the uploaded photograph (automated process, easy to implement), then an option could be put on the users preferances to say wether they prefer to see the 640 or the 800 or may be even the 1024.
I think if a poll was put up to say which a user prefers the results would be 50/50, so the only solution would be to have a per user option. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 05:21:33 PM · #153 |
I am amazed by the amount of people who want to keep 640 pix images. I would have thought just about everyone would have been in favour, the arguments against seem pretty thin to me;
1. I would havethought that anyone with a keen interest in digital photography uses a resolution that does not require scrolling for 800 pix images.
2. Do you really think a print worth having can be made from an 800 pix image?!
How much visual (on screen) detail would be gained from this, how much more would we see in the images!
Have a look at this images here at DPC;
And then again here at DeviantArt.com sized at 1024.
//www.deviantart.com/view/29986273/
No further questions, I rest my case, discussion over!
;o)
Message edited by muckpond - fixed link. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 05:35:36 PM · #154 |
I just might be an oddball on this, but personally, I don't have an opinion either way. There are pros and cons to either side.
If it is implemented then cool, if not cool...
My only concern is server overhead. We all know how slow the site gets after rollover. Might even 200k photos make this problem worse? Would we see more down time?
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 05:43:48 PM · #155 |
who are against 800 pix are against competition in reality of photographic. and that is period for me in future discussion about it
ice
Originally posted by IanA:
I am amazed by the amount of people who want to keep 640 pix images. I would have thought just about everyone would have been in favour, the arguments against seem pretty thin to me;
1. I would havethought that anyone with a keen interest in digital photography uses a resolution that does not require scrolling for 800 pix images.
2. Do you really think a print worth having can be made from an 800 pix image?!
How much visual (on screen) detail would be gained from this, how much more would we see in the images!
Have a look at this images here at DPC;
And then again here at DeviantArt.com sized at 1024.
//www.deviantart.com/view/29986273/
No further questions, I rest my case, discussion over!
;o) |
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 05:46:02 PM · #156 |
Originally posted by IceRock:
who are against 800 pix are against competition in reality of photographic. and that is period for me in future discussion about it
ice
|
WHAT? |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 05:49:44 PM · #157 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by IceRock:
who are against 800 pix are against competition in reality of photographic. and that is period for me in future discussion about it
ice
|
WHAT? |
LOL |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 06:12:30 PM · #158 |
I haven't got time to go through this whole thread, so what I'm saying may already have been mentioned, but I'll say it anyway. Anything that will slow down my ability to vote on a very slow dial-up connection is going to make life very difficult. I'm already missing seeing some wonderful photos since they made it impossible to vote using more than one window. I always used to make an effort to vote on every photo and this has recently become impossible.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 06:16:48 PM · #159 |
| For me the debate about staying at 640 or raising the limit at 800 is much like the frog theory in Dante's Peak. (It's the theory that says if you drop a frog in boiling water it will try to get out as fast as possible but if you put it in cold water and slowly raise the temperature she will stay there and die) the analogy is this: If D&L would create the site RIGHT NOW, they would know it is ridiculous to have a 640px limit on the longest side because RIGHT NOW the new technologies in camera, internet providers, bandwith limits, storage or display make this limits really really obsolete, but since the site is running for many years now and we are in our comfort zone, we stay at 640px. Come on everybody, the temperature is rising!!! |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 06:27:29 PM · #160 |
Originally posted by IanA:
Have a look at this images here at DPC;
And then again here at DeviantArt.com sized at 1024.
//www.deviantart.com/view/29986273/
No further questions, I rest my case, discussion over!
|
once i was done scrolling the deviantart version both horizontally and vertically, i can totally see your point. :P |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 06:43:22 PM · #161 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
once i was done scrolling the deviantart version both horizontally and vertically, i can totally see your point. :P |
LMAO |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 06:55:29 PM · #162 |
Originally posted by thegrandwazoo:
Originally posted by muckpond:
once i was done scrolling the deviantart version both horizontally and vertically, i can totally see your point. :P |
LMAO |
:o)
ok, I work at 1600 x 1200 so 1024 is fine for me but I do see your sarcasticly well made point. ;o)
But 800? Surley you wouldn't have to scroll for that??
I quite agree with the frog boiling comment. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 07:14:29 PM · #163 |
Originally posted by deapee:
... I will add though, that I don't think it's necessary to increase vertical size to 800. |
Tell that to 4 of the 9 ribbon winners currently on the winner's board with images in portrait mode. ;^)
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 07:24:49 PM · #164 |
It's good to see further discussion of "Proposition 800." I've personally come out as in support of it in the past, however it ultimately will be the desires of the community at large as to whether it sees the light of day.
With regard to the pros and cons, as well as the associated file size question, please do take time to read the older parts of the thread, there is a tremendous amount of good discussion there.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 07:32:42 PM · #165 |
Originally posted by bluenova:
If Imagemagick was used to resize the uploaded photograph (automated process, easy to implement), then an option could be put on the users preferances to say wether they prefer to see the 640 or the 800 or may be even the 1024.
I think if a poll was put up to say which a user prefers the results would be 50/50, so the only solution would be to have a per user option. |
Doing this would require a lot of server overhead to do it dynamically and require a lot of disk space to do it statically. Not to mention the argument of does anyone really want the servers resizing thier photos.
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 07:50:08 PM · #166 |
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Originally posted by bluenova:
If Imagemagick was used to resize the uploaded photograph (automated process, easy to implement), then an option could be put on the users preferances to say wether they prefer to see the 640 or the 800 or may be even the 1024.
I think if a poll was put up to say which a user prefers the results would be 50/50, so the only solution would be to have a per user option. |
Doing this would require a lot of server overhead to do it dynamically and require a lot of disk space to do it statically. Not to mention the argument of does anyone really want the servers resizing thier photos. |
Works fine on DeviantArt.com |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 07:50:17 PM · #167 |
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. |
To this I say...if your camera can't produce a quality picture at 800x800, you shouldn't be posting the pics here.
In regards to scrolling issues, I agree with the person who said one has the option to make the size whatever they want within the limits. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 07:53:04 PM · #168 |
Personally I think it should be seperate issues. Raising the pixel count and raising the filesize.
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:
Not to mention the argument of does anyone really want the servers resizing thier photos. |
Definately! If it means being able to see the whole photo without resizing my monitor or having my face two inches from the screen, you bet!
This is a site BY photographers FOR photographers. Why assume that they would implement something that hinders photography? I think it's far safer to assume that any server-side resizing would be fully researched and perfected before being chosen. I could even see them programming something comepletely new to get the job done right. So I'm not afraid of 'poor quality' resizing. If server-side was the chosen option.
I think one of the biggest proglems is people's browsers. The default tool bar; address bar; link bar etc setup is horrendous to look at and use. It can be made waaay more effecient. All of them can be put on the same line or two (depending on your tastes). Text labels are unneccesary (if you can't remember which one is back and which one is refresh you have bigger things to worry about). Icon size is (personal taste) way too big, the small icons do the same thing at about half the size. The end result is about 100-200 more pixels vertically in your browser (depending on your screen size). Everyone who cares about scrolling should have done all this already.
This discussion reminds me of when I help people with their computers. I'll show up and discover their screens at 640x480 or 800x600 and immediately suggest changing it to 1024x768 or greater (depending on their monitor). They say "ok" I change it, and it never fails "ewww it's too small change it back, I can't see it as well." I usually convince them to give it a try. A week later I get a phone call saying "I accidently changed my screen to the small size again, can you come change it? I guess I do like the bigger screen better." It'd be one thing if this was an isolated incident, but it's happened repeatedly.
Message edited by author 2006-03-06 19:54:35. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:17:40 PM · #169 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
It's good to see further discussion of "Proposition 800." I've personally come out as in support of it in the past, however it ultimately will be the desires of the community at large as to whether it sees the light of day.
With regard to the pros and cons, as well as the associated file size question, please do take time to read the older parts of the thread, there is a tremendous amount of good discussion there. |
I've read most of it (cant say all of it) and I still say, GO FOR IT ! |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:26:49 PM · #170 |
I would be worried about image theft at 800x800...
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:31:04 PM · #171 |
If we go to 800, maybe D&L could implement a "scale to 640" option, where any image greater than 640 pixels is automatically scaled "![]() " via html with a link on the page to open the image in a separate window full screen.
Not an ideal solution, but a way for those wanting to keep the 640 pixel limit in play.
Kinda like having your cake and eating it too. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:31:51 PM · #172 |
| For what it is worth, I love the idea of going to 800x800. I'm always a little disappointed by the results once I reduce an image down to 640. The option to increase image size would be welcome. As for image theft, I can understand that other people might be concerned, but frankly I'd be thrilled if anyone liked my pictures enough to steal them. |
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:40:48 PM · #173 |
I guess that as long as there is a level playing field, where everyone has to stick to the same size, I don't see a need for an increase in size...
A better image will still look better in 640, 700, 800, 1024, etc...
If someone thinks they have a better chance at submitting a ribbon winning photo because the resolution limit is lifted, then they need to look over the ribbon winning photos in every challenge ever, and realize that those images would look better in a higher resolution as well, and thus, they would be back to a point where their image at a higher resolution is still not as good as the ones that won...
In other words, my images will currently never look as good as Librodo's, Elsapo's or Joey's, no matter what the resolution...I hope that some day that will change as I get better, but even then, my image will have to look better than their's at ANY resolution to win a ribbon.
So, I guess I see no need for a change, especially if there are any points against the change, which there are...
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:43:27 PM · #174 |
Originally posted by Cooz:
I guess that as long as there is a level playing field, where everyone has to stick to the same size, I don't see a need for an increase in size...
A better image will still look better in 640, 700, 800, 1024, etc...
If someone thinks they have a better chance at submitting a ribbon winning photo because the resolution limit is lifted, then they need to look over the ribbon winning photos in every challenge ever, and realize that those images would look better in a higher resolution as well, and thus, they would be back to a point where their image at a higher resolution is still not as good as the ones that won...
In other words, my images will currently never look as good as Librodo's, Elsapo's or Joey's, no matter what the resolution...I hope that some day that will change as I get better, but even then, my image will have to look better than their's at ANY resolution to win a ribbon.
So, I guess I see no need for a change, especially if there are any points against the change, which there are... |
I disagree... in some shots, the detail is just impossible to try and squeeze into 640 pixels.. I have had many shots that look great at 800 but just unacceptable at 640.
 vs. DA
Lee
|
|
|
|
03/06/2006 08:46:04 PM · #175 |
Glad this is revived and with a poll. It's hard to reduce a landscape to 640 and get good results. There's so much loss of detail.
Also, a number of sites I submit to POTD use 800 as the max dimension, and this would mean that I wouldn't have to produce it in two resolutions.
But as I'm near my portfolio storage limit, I also would like to see our limits raised a bit. This is serious because I am getting into loading more prints, and while prints don't count against your space, the "smaller" image you load as a preview does!
So yes to both 800x800 and a storage increase. And even at 640x640 we need a storage increase! (Or how about at least for those of us that take advantage of DPCPrints?)
|
|
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: 04/24/2024 06:31:48 PM EDT.
