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 101 - 125 of 228, (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/17/2006 10:16:14 AM · #101
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:

Originally posted by pineapple:

640 or 700 is good by me, for viewing and download purposes. 800 is not convenient. Viewing 200 plus or minus photos to vote on with them all being 800 would limit my participation in voting. I have a fast DSL connection and a large LCD screen. But 800 larger than 700 is too time consuming. Perhaps try one challenge at 700 and see what it does to the server(s) and how members perceive the difference - whether it is worth changing.


If the file size stays at 150k then it will have no effect on the servers or DL time.


Originally posted by langdon:

The file size issue is not up for discussion does not mean that it won't change. When we come to a decision on any dimension change, we will assess if a file size change is needed. It makes perfect sense that if we're increasing the dimensions by 20%, we would also increase the file size by 20%
03/17/2006 10:17:15 AM · #102
"Nobody will ever need more than 640 pixels"
- Bill Gates

(for the record I support increasing the image size to 800x700 or 800x800)
03/17/2006 10:17:53 AM · #103
Originally posted by coolhar:


I think there are some options that continue to be thrown out in this discussion that need to be put to sleep.

-- I post some shots on another website that shows them in two sizes as well as a thumbnail so I have first hand knowledge of how this can change the appearance of your shots. As a photographer entering internet competitions, I want all those who judge my work to be looking at the same resolution image as the one I had in mind when I edited my original file to suit the conditions of the competition. Please end the discussion of any sort of auto-resizing, it's just not realistic in any forum where you are claiming that the change would allow your shots to look better to viewers.



Due respect, Harvey, and thank you for being polite in this, but I disagree. I also don't think it's fair to ask "me" to end this discussion; it's just as appropriate as all the people asking "me" to buy new equipment. Quite honestly, I think you are missing the point; most of the people who would choose to use the lower rez version are probably viewing your pic on older, lower rez equipment and thus are not seeing the exact same version you do anyway. Do you want to make it illegal for them to vote because they don't own a newer high rez monitor? At 640x640, you may be in control of every detail of the FILE, but you are by no means in control of what the viewer sees. To imply that imagemagick would make this worse is rather silly, and to say that this would be totally inappropriate for the site is also rather silly, in my opinion.

Thank you for understanding that I believe this is a very reasonable and appropriate approach; I will continue to promote it as such. Your artistic concerns are not the only valid concerns in this discussion, even though they ARE valid. I can understand that you would prefer this possibility to be swept under the rug, and I apologize for stepping on your toes by continuing to present it as such, but I would appreciate mutual respect by being allowed to present my viewpoint just as everyone else is doing.

I voted for no change, by the way, even though my monitor registered on the size poll as 1280x1024.
03/17/2006 10:22:41 AM · #104
I just changed my monitor to 1280x1024 and I couldn't read the words even with glasses, so I blew the words up a bit and not I can't see the top navigating bar on dpc. It is all bunched up. What am I don't wrong here. The text also looks bulking and not very attractive. The funny thing is..I don't have bad eyesight but yet I can't read the font. :-/

My monitor is normally set at 1152x864.
03/17/2006 10:22:44 AM · #105
Originally posted by paulb_17:

"Nobody will ever need more than 640 pixels"
- Bill Gates


That was 640K :-P but still kinda funny.
03/17/2006 10:26:24 AM · #106
And is it just me or is everyones face smashed in the pictures because of the 1280x1024?
03/17/2006 10:26:26 AM · #107
Originally posted by Sonifo:

I just changed my monitor to 1280x1024 and I couldn't read the words even with glasses, so I blew the words up a bit and not I can't see the top navigating bar on dpc. It is all bunched up. What am I don't wrong here. The text also looks bulking and not very attractive. The funny thing is..I don't have bad eyesight but yet I can't read the font. :-/

My monitor is normally set at 1152x864.

You monitor will have an ideal resolution (perhaps 1152x864), most monitors can accept a very high res, but it'll look crappy.
03/17/2006 10:33:49 AM · #108
Moving DPC logos around would help create more screen real estate, but please don't rearrange things so that the voting bar is back up on top.

People should have to look at the whole photo before they can vote, instead of voting on thumbnails because they don't want to wait for the pic to load all the way.
03/17/2006 10:34:52 AM · #109
Originally posted by nards656:

Originally posted by coolhar:


I think there are some options that continue to be thrown out in this discussion that need to be put to sleep.

-- I post some shots on another website that shows them in two sizes as well as a thumbnail so I have first hand knowledge of how this can change the appearance of your shots. As a photographer entering internet competitions, I want all those who judge my work to be looking at the same resolution image as the one I had in mind when I edited my original file to suit the conditions of the competition. Please end the discussion of any sort of auto-resizing, it's just not realistic in any forum where you are claiming that the change would allow your shots to look better to viewers.



... Quite honestly, I think you are missing the point; most of the people who would choose to use the lower rez version are probably viewing your pic on older, lower rez equipment and thus are not seeing the exact same version you do anyway. ...


I agree with coolhar on resizing. I don't want to lose control of that. There can be substantial differences in how an image looks based on the resizing technique you use, and the technique can differ based on the type of image (lots of detail, vs large color blocks, etc...).

FWIW I'm using a decent 19" LCD that is 8 months old and calibrated using ColorPlus. I don't want larger images either.

It's one thing to have images resized via computer automation when the images aren't being judged/voted on versus the competition going on here.

Also, don't you think it's rather "silly" to assume those wanting lower "rez" are using older/outdated equipment? ;^)

I say NO to auto-resizing!
03/17/2006 10:37:31 AM · #110
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

Originally posted by paulb_17:

"Nobody will ever need more than 640 pixels"
- Bill Gates


That was 640K :-P but still kinda funny.


It was a paraphrase, at least someone got a chuckle out of it.
03/17/2006 10:45:26 AM · #111
Originally posted by Sonifo:

And is it just me or is everyones face smashed in the pictures because of the 1280x1024?


It's just you.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/307686.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/17203/thumb/307686.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

I can go to 2304 x 1440 pixels, but clamoring for higher resolutions seems more like a want than a need to me. I've seen 640px photos with great detail and sharpness on this site, so I'm not sure there's a problem that more pixels would correct.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 10:55:02.
03/17/2006 10:47:06 AM · #112
the pic looked goos to me but I one of 14 cats here that have length 1200.

Is it possible to find a medium between the 2 since most did vote for the 800?

Why not make the width up to 800 & leave the length 640?

Seems like it might work, no?
03/17/2006 10:48:21 AM · #113
Originally posted by Rooster:

the pic looked goos to me but I one of 14 cats here that have length 1200.

Is it possible to find a medium between the 2 since most did vote for the 800?

Why not make the width up to 800 & leave the length 640?

Seems like it might work, no?

No.
03/17/2006 10:52:07 AM · #114
Originally posted by glad2badad:

Originally posted by Rooster:

the pic looked goos to me but I one of 14 cats here that have length 1200.

Is it possible to find a medium between the 2 since most did vote for the 800?

Why not make the width up to 800 & leave the length 640?

Seems like it might work, no?

No.

Just to elaborate, it won't be fair to portrait shots.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 10:52:18.
03/17/2006 10:52:27 AM · #115
Originally posted by Rooster:

the pic looked goos to me but I one of 14 cats here that have length 1200.

Is it possible to find a medium between the 2 since most did vote for the 800?

Why not make the width up to 800 & leave the length 640?

Seems like it might work, no?


It's been mentioned that it would give an unfair disadvantage to portrait oriented photos.
03/17/2006 10:58:53 AM · #116
I'd be happy with just a total pixel limit over a dimensional limit. Basically, what I mean is that 640 x 640 = 409,600 pixels. 800 x 512 = 409,600 pixels, too. The 640x640 never made vertically oriented crops or square crops seem too small, but I always felt that horizontally oriented crops did feel small, even when they were maxed out. I know it's an illusion, but it's an optical illusion, and since this is a pretty pictures site, that can mean bad news.

PS - sorry to chime in so late...I'm behind the curve...
03/17/2006 11:02:22 AM · #117
I have an idea. How about lifting the resolution limit for one challenge, but keep the file size at 150kb and let's see what the photogs and voters decide is best.
03/17/2006 11:15:10 AM · #118
Originally posted by glad2badad:

.....I agree with coolhar on resizing. I don't want to lose control of that. There can be substantial differences in how an image looks based on the resizing technique you use, and the technique can differ based on the type of image (lots of detail, vs large color blocks, etc...)......


I don't disagree but if the only 2 choices are a software resize (downsizing in this case, not upsizing) or having the user scroll to see the image, which would you pick - only these 2 options :)?

You either stay with the lowest common deminator way past the time most people have moved on or you make a compromise for those users. As somebody already mentioned, it's likely older hardware with those low res size and they are not likely seeing the full picture anyway.
03/17/2006 11:21:51 AM · #119
Just for fun I tried to do a little more analysis on the counts. I made some broad assumptions about preferences (for example, a person who voted for 800x800 would have 800x700 as a second choice, 700x700 as a third, and no change as last). Summarized in a scren shot of Excel.

My conclusion - which is probably obvious to everybody - there is quite a bit of support for a change - 800x700 and 700x700 come out ranked very close at 1&2 in all the methods.

I agree with some of the other posts - let's give it a try for a challenge - at 700x700 and see what happens.

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/23312/thumb/307690.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/23312/thumb/307690.jpg', '/') + 1) . '
03/17/2006 11:22:12 AM · #120
Originally posted by glad2badad:


Also, don't you think it's rather "silly" to assume those wanting lower "rez" are using older/outdated equipment? ;^)


No, I don't think that's a silly assumption, based on the prevailing mentality of this thread - "those who don't want to increase pixel dimensions should upgrade and get with the times - if they are real photographers they'll get new equipment."

By the way, I'm all for staying at 640. I'm just sick and tired of all the insistence for increase without giving those of us with slow downloads some way to compensate. In my opinion, you are making a bigger issue of the perceived quality difference than it deserves. If there's any truth to the opinion that most people don't need the small file size, your scores wouldn't suffer nearly as much as you seem to think they will.

I've got my viewpoint, you've got yours. Fine. Let's leave it at that, but please don't tell me to shut up and go away, okay? Thanks.
03/17/2006 11:25:49 AM · #121
Originally posted by robs:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

.....I agree with coolhar on resizing. I don't want to lose control of that. There can be substantial differences in how an image looks based on the resizing technique you use, and the technique can differ based on the type of image (lots of detail, vs large color blocks, etc...)......


I don't disagree but if the only 2 choices are a software resize (downsizing in this case, not upsizing) or having the user scroll to see the image, which would you pick - only these 2 options :)?

You either stay with the lowest common deminator way past the time most people have moved on or you make a compromise for those users. As somebody already mentioned, it's likely older hardware with those low res size and they are not likely seeing the full picture anyway.

No, there aren't only two choices. Stay at 640. No need for auto-resizing. As for "somebody already mentioned..." - that was an assumption and a far reaching one at that.
03/17/2006 11:26:28 AM · #122
Originally posted by nards656:

... please don't tell me to shut up and go away, okay? Thanks.

Never did. You're welcome.
03/17/2006 11:29:44 AM · #123
seems like an awful lot of work, time, and talk for something that wasnt going to happen anyway ?

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 11:35:44.
03/17/2006 11:37:52 AM · #124
The resolution data is based on what people have their monitor set at not what it is capable of doing. There are many factors to this, one may be poor vision. YES it is possible to have poor vision and still be a great photographer. Many don't know that it is normally possible to increase to a better resolution and set the text size to a larger text size allowing it to be read still. A monitor resolution is not a constant, depending on what you use it for you may have one resolution you use for typing and another for graphics yet another for playing games. In most cases a higher reolution is best for photogrpahy or graphics, a lower resolution for playing solitare cards.

Those who choose lower resolution for their own reasons should not hold those back who have chosen higher resolution. Likewise those who do not have the cash to upgrade and are currently using the highest resolution available should not be pushed aside. I also do not think that those who can increase their resolution for photography but chose not to should be as big of a concern. This is a photography site not a card playing site.

Let's be friends but also if 90% can set a higher resolution then it needs to be looked at much harder. There are people here that contribute great photos from $10,000 cameras and those who use $75 camera, the reality is that not everyone has money to upgrade a monitor and graphics card to power it. The concern over dial-up versus broadband is mute, it's the size of the file not the resolution of the photo. 150kb is the same for fast or slow internet.

Let's be friends but make a good business and neighbour decision.
03/17/2006 11:42:14 AM · #125
Just for comparison's sake; here's a shot from this morning at 640 pixels and 150Kb:

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/30861/thumb/307694.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

Same shot at 700 pixels and 250Kb here.

Robt.

Edit to add; you can compare 250kb to 150kb download times by clicking these links, as well as screen-size issues.

Message edited by author 2006-03-17 11:58:25.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 10/26/2020 05:54:43 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: 10/26/2020 05:54:43 AM EDT.