DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Administrator Announcements >> 640x640 Restriction Poll Results
Pages:  
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 228, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/17/2006 02:12:54 AM · #51
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

what about 800 wide x 640 tall?

As as been mentioned in these discussions many times, this creates a supremely unlevel playing field for people whose composition requires a portrait orientation.
03/17/2006 02:14:22 AM · #52
Hey as long as we're blowing this thing up...

edit: Ok, that was uncalled for.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 02:18:30.
03/17/2006 02:20:54 AM · #53
If you say so ... : )
03/17/2006 02:30:33 AM · #54
At 800 pixels images are to large for me to see all on the screen at the same times. That causes two problems:

1-I won't even be able to see my own submission all on the screen at the same time at 800 X 800. That will cause hardship making submission files.

2-I cannot see a whole image on the screen so not be able to evaluate it easily or correctly.

As a result I will vote and comment a lot less.
03/17/2006 02:33:04 AM · #55
ok, I guess problem solved if we go for 720 or 700?

Langdon, is it time for another poll? But I think a sample image (on the official DPC voting background) would be useful so voters know what they are voting for.
03/17/2006 02:38:50 AM · #56
IMPORTANT: File size is not changing! Well, apparently it isn't.

It is important to understand when discussing the image size that the file size is likely not changing from 150KB. So, while I would personally like 800x800 images, I think that, in most cases, 150KB is not sufficient to compress such an image without visible artifacts, thus detrimenting the image quality! 800x800 is more than 1.5 times more infromation than 640x640, the file size should increase to about 230KB for the quality to stay the same.

I would take a high quality 640x640 image over bad quality 800x800! At first I voted for 800x800, but then, after a discussion with SC (which revealed that the file size is not up for discussion), I changed my vote to 640x640.
03/17/2006 03:15:39 AM · #57
I think a very significant portion of users will generally by using 768 pixel tall displays. Generally, this will allow them to view a 700 or 720 pixel tall image in the window if they use the f11 toggle to basic mode.

I wonder if an image is taller than 640 pixels, a small note about halfway down on the right of the image "If the image is too small, use the F11 button to change your browser to see more."

This would educate the masses at the same time as making the change easy for everyone.

When voting, I remembered an earlier thread which discussed the issues surrounding images taller than can be viewed on a 1024x768 screen.

If I had the time, I would have searched for that thread again, and having found it, I would have voted for the 700x700.

In fact, that was my first vote, but I changed it because I couldn't remember offhand and I kinda would like to see a small change.

To be honest, I'd almost like to see 800x700 with a max height of 700.

This is just making it useful for the masses.
03/17/2006 04:02:07 AM · #58
If what agenkin is saying (I am not doubting you) then I totally withdraw my 800x800 vote. I think that the current 150k file size works fine with 640 images but am rather worried about the effects it wil have on bigger images.If anything should cange it's better that it's the file size rather then image size.
Since it appears that's not going to happen I would have things stay as they are. Never had any real problems with the current setup anyways.
03/17/2006 04:18:28 AM · #59
Originally posted by stdavidson:

At 800 pixels images are to large for me to see all on the screen at the same times. That causes two problems:

1-I won't even be able to see my own submission all on the screen at the same time at 800 X 800. That will cause hardship making submission files.

2-I cannot see a whole image on the screen so not be able to evaluate it easily or correctly.

As a result I will vote and comment a lot less.


Same here, as I vote at work on a 1024x768 screen res.

We'll probably lose at least 300 voters and commenters if the change is made, according to the poll.
03/17/2006 05:00:32 AM · #60
Originally posted by langdon:

It's still up for discussion -- I'm curious as to how people feel now with the information I've provided.

Good stuff Langdon, I back your summary that change is not justified.

A photo must able to be viewed in full for a fair and proper assessment to be made of it. Not one of us would like a judge to vote a competition print of our work with the bottom quarter of it covered up

Brett
03/17/2006 05:02:21 AM · #61
Originally posted by langdon:


I agree that a larger size is good... I personally want 800x800, but I don't think it's fair to those without the screen real-estate. Depending on how this discussion goes, 700x700 or 720x720 might be what we end up with.


Allrity, I am using 1280x1024 and voted for a 800x800 but I am not opposed to no change, I completely understand. I think it would be a good idea to do some change though so if middle ground is 700x700 I say two thumbs up :)
03/17/2006 05:27:46 AM · #62
I back the findings from Langdon as well. I opened the larger file repeatedly, and I find it annoying having to move it up and down to see the lower section. It doesn't give me a feel of the overall view of the photo. Iwould be ok with 700x700 as well tho I voted for 800
03/17/2006 05:37:34 AM · #63
Originally posted by Faye Pekas:

I voted for 800X800, but after seeing the photo you posted, I would vote differently. I have to scroll too far to see all of it.


i agree completely. even with the f11, i'm still ascrolling away. not ideal. could this be a case where bigger is not better? and smoeone mentioned an options for viewing size. could this be done? that way we could get the full effect of a shot in a smaller size, then scle up to look at details.
03/17/2006 05:44:15 AM · #64
@langdon

What were your views on the comments suggesting to use imagemagick to create 2 sizes and have a profile option as to which one to view?

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 05:44:55.
03/17/2006 05:50:19 AM · #65
well.... a lot of you are telling us you need to use f11.... voters, in general won't or can't use f11. Its something that some of them just won't do. It's like me telling you to turn the monitor 90 degrees to make it better to view the entries because I can. I run a monitor thats 1024 x 1280 on purpose... to enable certain things including votingwith out having to scroll but, i still voted to keep the size the same as it is
03/17/2006 06:18:37 AM · #66
I voted for 800x800 but I never really thought about it. I think you're totally right. Keep it as is.
03/17/2006 06:45:57 AM · #67
I voted 800x800 and agree now that it doesn't work, but I do like two suggestions:

1. Nigels suggestion about having the "My Home Cahllenges etc..." Bar on the side

2. Running at at least 700x700 or preferably 720x720 and perhaps 180kb

640x640 is just too small...800x800 too big...the seven hundreds should win!


03/17/2006 07:08:24 AM · #68
Originally posted by bluenova:

@langdon

What were your views on the comments suggesting to use imagemagick to create 2 sizes and have a profile option as to which one to view?


I'm not langdon, but I would LOVE to see this. However, it's a photography site, and many people here are VERY concerned that the quality of their photo would be lowered disproportionately to that of other photos and their score would be reflected upon badly.

Personally, since pbase and several other sites do EXACTLY this, I call BS, but that seems to be a prevalent opinion. Pbase does it very well, with the three different sizes that an image can be viewed at, and I think it is probably the best idea of all. It allows EVERYONE to see the pictures at an acceptable resolution, and it also helps with the ongoing debate about broadband vs. dialup. These ongoing comments of "I don't want a script resizing my picture" are highly uninformed, because I see little or no evidence of real quality issues on sites that use this technology.

I would REALLY like to see a poll about this particular issue.
03/17/2006 07:24:53 AM · #69
Looking just at the voting, if the decision was between 700x700 or staying the same, the results would have been:

717 votes in favor of 700x700 (assuming the 800 voters still want to go at least somewhat bigger).

That's 64% of the voters wanting bigger. While not a HUGE majority, it is a majority. Perhaps a members only poll would show a bigger majority and the answer would be 640 for open challenges and 800 for member challenges.
03/17/2006 07:30:13 AM · #70
Earlier I voted for 800x800. I think 720x720 @180 kb will be great.
03/17/2006 07:33:35 AM · #71
800x640 or 640x800 would both equal 512,000 pixels. Would it make sense to consider the total pixel count (in addition to the 150 kb file size) as our limits? Let the actual dimensions be up to the photographer. If I were dumb enough to submit an image of 500 x 1024 (also = 512,000 pixels), I'm sure the voters would duly chastise me.

Edit: A limit of 512,000 - w/o consideration of dimension, would eliminate any portrait vs. landscape bias.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 07:41:58.
03/17/2006 07:51:04 AM · #72
Originally posted by lenkphotos:

800x640 or 640x800 would both equal 512,000 pixels. Would it make sense to consider the total pixel count (in addition to the 150 kb file size) as our limits? Let the actual dimensions be up to the photographer. If I were dumb enough to submit an image of 500 x 1024 (also = 512,000 pixels), I'm sure the voters would duly chastise me.

Edit: A limit of 512,000 - w/o consideration of dimension, would eliminate any portrait vs. landscape bias.

I think that would backfire, as those using a res of 1024 or lower would vote lower on an 800x pic as it would mean not seeing the whole image.
03/17/2006 07:52:40 AM · #73
Originally posted by Nigel:

How about 740x740 pictures with the DPC logo and menu displayed down the left side of the screen and the picture being voted on to the right at the very top of the page?

This would allow people using all screens of 1024x768 resolution and above to display the full picture straight up without scrolling, using the full screen (f11) and auto hide toolbar. At the moment even with a 1024x768 screen and a 640x640 picture it can be a bit tedious scrolling every picture into view, and then scrolling down again to vote.

A 740x740 picture would give almost 34% bigger images, and by rearranging the page it would make them quicker to view.

I have created a scaled down screen shot to show what I am suggesting.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/49858/thumb/307588.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/49858/thumb/307588.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

This is how the screen would appear at 1024x768 with a 740x740 picture, using Internet Explorer in full screen with a pop-up hidden tool bar. The voting bar, comment box and page footer could all be scrolled down to.


While I run very little toolbars on top of my IE and have the address bar on the same line as the icons (2 rows total with menu items) I am still fine with the current image size but do also see advantages to change. I like this idea but not sure how easy it is to incoorporate.
03/17/2006 07:57:02 AM · #74
Originally posted by bluenova:

Originally posted by lenkphotos:

800x640 or 640x800 would both equal 512,000 pixels. Would it make sense to consider the total pixel count (in addition to the 150 kb file size) as our limits? Let the actual dimensions be up to the photographer. If I were dumb enough to submit an image of 500 x 1024 (also = 512,000 pixels), I'm sure the voters would duly chastise me.

Edit: A limit of 512,000 - w/o consideration of dimension, would eliminate any portrait vs. landscape bias.

I think that would backfire, as those using a res of 1024 or lower would vote lower on an 800x pic as it would mean not seeing the whole image.

...But, that's just the point. The voters would decide. I've had lots of photos "backfire" on me - for a variety of reasons, including image dimensions. We just need to be smarter about our audience.
03/17/2006 08:24:31 AM · #75
Here is 640 sample :
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/6405/thumb/307657.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/6405/thumb/307657.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

and 800 x 800 sample:
' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/6405/thumb/307658.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/6405/thumb/307658.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

As you see ,let's tick with 640X640 ! :-)
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 12/02/2020 12:47:19 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Prints! - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2020 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Proudly hosted by Sargasso Networks. Current Server Time: 12/02/2020 12:47:19 AM EST.