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

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Posting photos that are too small
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 30, (reverse)
AuthorThread
01/15/2003 11:58:58 AM · #1
IMO a photo should be at least 500 pixels high or 700 pixels wide, many of the landscape photos are too small, I have a very hard time critiquing and rating a photo that I can hardly see.
01/15/2003 12:04:07 PM · #2
Agree completely. I saw a land scape image that looked interesting but I had to give it a low score due to it's size. I've wondered why people submit such tiny photos? Is it total photoshoped? I know most images look better as a thumb nail but.......
01/15/2003 12:08:06 PM · #3
Maximum dimension size is 640 pixels on this site.

-- shohn
01/15/2003 12:17:05 PM · #4
Originally posted by shohn:

Maximum dimension size is 640 pixels on this site.

-- shohn


OK, then we should be using the max.
01/15/2003 12:18:36 PM · #5
Why not simply adjust your screen to view it accordingly?
01/15/2003 12:18:53 PM · #6
I totally agree, it annoys me when an image is only half the size, though it is within the guidelines. Makes me thik they are trying to hide something. I dunno.
01/15/2003 12:20:06 PM · #7
Originally posted by Morgan:

Why not simply adjust your screen to view it accordingly?

What do you mean?
01/15/2003 12:33:02 PM · #8
Originally posted by Paige:

Originally posted by Morgan:

Why not simply adjust your screen to view it accordingly?

What do you mean?


What's your screen resolution? I used to view at 600x800 and I just switched to 1027X768 and EVERYTHING looks so tiny. If things look small, see if you have a smaller resolution in your settings.
01/15/2003 12:42:46 PM · #9
Originally posted by hbunch7187:

Originally posted by Paige:

Originally posted by Morgan:

Why not simply adjust your screen to view it accordingly?

What do you mean?


What's your screen resolution? I used to view at 600x800 and I just switched to 1027X768 and EVERYTHING looks so tiny. If things look small, see if you have a smaller resolution in your settings.


Checked my settings they are currently at 800x600. Doesn't changing your resolution change the quality of the shot you are looking at?
01/15/2003 12:46:39 PM · #10
Strange. I didn't notice any quality change. And I made sure cause I print from this computer too.
On the old site, the photo size had to be 640X480 and at 600X800, I had to scroll to see the whole photo. I didn't like that at all. I can't imagine if the photos were required to be bigger. Well, now that I changed resolution, I can see the whole shot, but no way on 600x800.
01/15/2003 12:56:37 PM · #11
Originally posted by hbunch7187:

Strange. I didn't notice any quality change. And I made sure cause I print from this computer too.
On the old site, the photo size had to be 640X480 and at 600X800, I had to scroll to see the whole photo. I didn't like that at all. I can't imagine if the photos were required to be bigger. Well, now that I changed resolution, I can see the whole shot, but no way on 600x800.

I don't know if it does change your viewing quality, I was asking. :)
I guess having to scroll to see a photo has to do with your monitor size.
Does your screen resolution have anything to do with your printing quality? I don't think so.
01/15/2003 02:06:12 PM · #12
Your screen size is purely a physical dimension. It has nothing to do with the resolution of the screen. You can set the resolution of a (good) 15" monitor to 1600 X 1200, and you can have a 22" monitor running 640 X 480. If an image has a resolution of 640 X 480 pixels, it will fill all of a screen set at 640 X 480 resolution, and less of the screen set at higher resolution. The image will be physically larger on a larger screen, given the same resolution setting, but the number of pixels displayed (640 X 480) will be the same.
Printing is entirely unrelated to the resolution setting of your screen. The resolution of the image file (pixels per inch) is the determining factor here.
01/15/2003 02:16:20 PM · #13
Originally posted by irae:

Your screen size is purely a physical dimension. It has nothing to do with the resolution of the screen. You can set the resolution of a (good) 15" monitor to 1600 X 1200, and you can have a 22" monitor running 640 X 480. If an image has a resolution of 640 X 480 pixels, it will fill all of a screen set at 640 X 480 resolution, and less of the screen set at higher resolution. The image will be physically larger on a larger screen, given the same resolution setting, but the number of pixels displayed (640 X 480) will be the same.
Printing is entirely unrelated to the resolution setting of your screen. The resolution of the image file (pixels per inch) is the determining factor here.


I realize that it stays the same pixels. However, because the pixels are smaller, the photo gets "smaller". You look at it, and it's visually smaller on the screen than at the 800x600 res. About printing, what I meant, was when I change resolution on my moniter, I made sure the photos looked the same (other than visual size)on the screen (so I could edit properly) as when I was at the smaller res. because I print them and I wanted them to look right when they were printed. Like on some moniters photos look blotchy, where on others they don't. I wanted to make sure it didn't create some funky effect like that.
01/15/2003 02:42:49 PM · #14
Originally posted by hbunch7187:


About printing, what I meant, was when I change resolution on my moniter, I made sure the photos looked the same (other than visual size)on the screen (so I could edit properly) as when I was at the smaller res. because I print them and I wanted them to look right when they were printed. Like on some moniters photos look blotchy, where on others they don't. I wanted to make sure it didn't create some funky effect like that.


There is usually a difference in the way an image is presented on two different monitors. This is due to the differences in calibration (or lack of calibration) and settings (color depth) between the systems. Two properly calibrated systems running at the same bit-depth should, however, give very similar representations of the same image file.
Changing the resolution setting on the monitor should have no effect at all on the bit-depth or color profile. All you change when you change the monitor resolution is the apparent size of the viewed image. Honestly nothing to do with printing at all.
01/15/2003 02:52:03 PM · #15
I know how it works. I was simply responding to Paiges question of if it changed the quality of the image.
01/15/2003 03:24:26 PM · #16
Thanks for your input, Heather and irae. I appreciate the time.
01/15/2003 03:34:15 PM · #17
Originally posted by hbunch7187:

Originally posted by Paige:

Originally posted by Morgan:

Why not simply adjust your screen to view it accordingly?

What do you mean?


What's your screen resolution? I used to view at 600x800 and I just switched to 1027X768 and EVERYTHING looks so tiny. If things look small, see if you have a smaller resolution in your settings.



i have my monitor at 1600 X 1200. the submitted size should have a MINIMUM of 640 pixels on a side...
01/15/2003 03:49:01 PM · #18
Sometimes a smaller image results from cropping a smaller piece out of a photo and choosing to not resample it up to a larger size. The resampling can lose more detail than is gained by the apparent size increase. Sometimes a smaller image may result from an esthetic choice; the size of the print may contribute to the content and the overall effect .
01/15/2003 04:01:28 PM · #19
Thanks irae, I just changed mine to 640 by 480. I love it.
I can read the forums without squinting my eyes.
This is great!!!
sonja
01/15/2003 04:52:58 PM · #20
Originally posted by Paige:

IMO a photo should be at least 500 pixels high or 700 pixels wide, many of the landscape photos are too small, I have a very hard time critiquing and rating a photo that I can hardly see.


Since DP Challenge has a maximum dimension of 640 in one direction (and I think perhaps 400 in the other) your figures may be a bit high. However, I do agree with the concept.

Really small images make it hard to assess focus and even DOF. Perhaps a minimum of 400 in one dimension would complement the existing rules well. It would make it easier to judge from a "would this look ok hung on a wall" point of view - small images can hide so many faults.
01/15/2003 04:56:59 PM · #21
Originally posted by hbunch7187:

I know how it works. I was simply responding to Paiges question of if it changed the quality of the image.


Sorry about that, Heather. Guess I got confused w/r/t your meaning.
01/15/2003 05:04:54 PM · #22
Why do you want to further restrict people's artistic freedom? If you don't like a small photo, then lower your vote -- that's the purpose of having a scale.
The person either made it small on purpose (for artistic or technical reasons) or by accident; in either case the photographer bears the consequences of their actions in their score.
We have a minimum size. Let's see if there's a problem with the new rules before we go making tons of changes.
01/15/2003 05:30:23 PM · #23
Originally posted by GeneralE:

Why do you want to further restrict people's artistic freedom? If you don't like a small photo, then lower your vote


I noticed a lot of small pictures in the Landscape challenge also, and I figured most of them must have been mistakes because I don't see any reason at all for making a tiny picture. Although someone might have a reason for this... but I think most were mistakes.

So I just left a comment on most of them stating that I was going to deduct several points for it (mistake or not) because to me the small size takes away from the picture 9 times out of 10.
01/15/2003 05:38:31 PM · #24
Does it really matter what size? hmmmm.....why? I didn't mark ayone down for their photo being to small. It just does'nt make sence. ???
01/15/2003 07:09:44 PM · #25
it makes sense when it's so small that it's hard to see :) ...



Originally posted by Sonifo:

Does it really matter what size? hmmmm.....why? I didn't mark ayone down for their photo being to small. It just does'nt make sence. ???

Pages:  
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:24:58 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 © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 03/28/2024 06:24:58 AM EDT.