| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/06/2009 03:58:55 PM · #1 |
Oh dear, I can't believe I'm going to stir up this hornets' nest, but yes, I do believe it's time to revisit the need to increase size limits for challenges. Radical of me, I know. But I'm one of those who always seems to shoot "busy" and by gosh, if I'm going to be dissed for busy shots, I at least want my detractors to be able to see them!! :-)
I vote we increase basic editing challenges to 720 pixels on the long side, and advanced to at least 800 pixels. Sure, you could probably "steal" an 800 pixel image and make a nice pixelated 4x6 print, but really, it wouldn't be all THAT good.
Thoughts? Will Langdon accept bribes of European chocolate? |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:02:16 PM · #2 |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:03:51 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
 |
Sorry, BeeCees popcorn has better butter flavor. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:05:45 PM · #4 |
| You should bribe him with some brownies M!!! |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:13:27 PM · #5 |
I dabble a bit with 1x where the size convention seems to be images within 950 X 850; I have to say where I have seen the same image on both sites, the larger version looks much, much better. However, I must declare that I use 30" monitors some my problem with 720 X 720 images, or even worse 640 X 640 is compounded by that.
I hadn't realised that the motivation might be a copyright issue - I had just assumed it was space related. Nonetheless; I think larger sizes would be a really, really good thing. Happy to chip in with popcorn, brownies and chocolate as required. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:16:44 PM · #6 |
Put me smack in the middle of the "bigger is better" camp: like Deb, I shoot "busy" images a lot, and oh, do they suffer in DPC challenges! It's a constant source of stress for me...
R. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:17:43 PM · #7 |
Yeah, part of my suggestion is based on  LevT's recent ribbon winner from the candid challenge - it looks good here but it looks significantly better at 1x. For comparison:
At DPC vs At 1x
(Although to be fair, the DPC version is basic edited and the 1x version has no editing restrictions - not sure how much of a factor that is.)
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 16:18:37. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:22:13 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
Yeah, part of my suggestion is based on LevT's recent ribbon winner from the candid challenge - it looks good here but it looks significantly better at 1x. For comparison:
At DPC vs At 1x
(Although to be fair, the DPC version is basic edited and the 1x version has no editing restrictions - not sure how much of a factor that is.) |
Aside from the ability to spot-edit the hat's brim, I don't see anything in the 1x version that's significantly different in processing from the basic version. And oh my goodness, how much better the image looks!
R. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:32:15 PM · #9 |
I'm in agreement. Larger is better. Unless my image is garbage with no real detail, then 640 pixels obscures it nicely.
I'll bring the dead horse to the party.
 |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:37:53 PM · #10 |
I've come to the comclusion that regulating pixel dimension is to problematic. Why not ...
Eliminate the pixel dimension limits altogether ... but set a size limit of, say, 250 K (in order to manage server space utilization, for example).
If a photog abuses the pixel dimensions with that 6000x4000 pixel image, it would be at his or her peril due to low image quality, and voters might punish photos they can't see enough of in their browser.
And if a high quality is an image differentiator, let the photog submit smaller pixel image with max jpg quality at 250 K. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:42:19 PM · #11 |
I say lets have a poll
2006 Poll
2007 Poll |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 04:53:18 PM · #12 |
How about some fresh  instead of that stale boxed stuff? |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 05:01:54 PM · #13 |
| Yup!!!!! It is time to increase it to 200kb I would even push for 320kb because well its been so long since we first started asking for the 200kb |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 05:41:15 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Dr.Confuser:
I've come to the comclusion that regulating pixel dimension is to problematic. Why not ...
Eliminate the pixel dimension limits altogether ... but set a size limit of, say, 250 K (in order to manage server space utilization, for example).
If a photog abuses the pixel dimensions with that 6000x4000 pixel image, it would be at his or her peril due to low image quality, and voters might punish photos they can't see enough of in their browser.
And if a high quality is an image differentiator, let the photog submit smaller pixel image with max jpg quality at 250 K. |
Hell, 250kb ain't NEAR enough, jejeje™
R. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 05:55:12 PM · #15 |
| I agree! Bigger looks better ;-) |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 06:00:54 PM · #16 |
I may have only been here a couple of years now (my how time flies!), but I would also like to throw my hat in this ring.
800px for Members
720px for Open
I'd have to say 300kb for members images and 200kb for open. Heck, disk space is beyond cheap these days. Bandwidth, even more so. Bump up the yearly membership a couple of bucks, if necessary.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 06:01:43 PM · #17 |
I agree with everything and anything that is bigger and better:)
A good shot gets messy at 640x640 150K. I would like bigger shots in challenges so people can see what gets missed. I know the old argument is bandwidth for dialup and storage, but surely this site can now handle 720X as a minimum.
I have reached the point where I won't bother entering challenges as the size restricts the quality of the photos. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 06:12:52 PM · #18 |
| im all for 720x720 and 300kb file! |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 06:26:38 PM · #19 |
Did I hear someone mention BeeCee's popcorn?
(but now that I finally have a new monitor and the same aging eyes, I finally vote for a little bigger, too) |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:14:29 PM · #20 |
| I would have liked to have seen the motivational poster challenge in at least the 720 pixel range. We will have a bunch of entries that will have a thick border on the image to accommodate for the text that will be expected and will then reduce the actual image size by alot. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:36:32 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by glad2badad:
|
Are you the on LS2 forum? |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:45:07 PM · #22 |
I'm wholly in support of another increase, and I'd like to see a substantial one, say 960px. I think that this is supportable on today's hardware. The example of LevT's shot points up just how much more powerful images are at that size than at DPC size. There are a few issues that SC/Admins would need to address:
- Slow downloads for dialup users. The last poll in November 2007 put the percentage of dialup users at 3.1%, and we're 18 months down the road from that. I suspect the number is now about 1.5%.
- Affect on users who pay by bandwwidth used; I don't know if there are a significant number of users who pay per megabyte anymore (some parts of EU used to do this, perhaps still do?)
- The implied advantage for landscape images, which fit monitors better, especially the wide-screen monitors in general use today. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:50:15 PM · #23 |
OH NO! I hadn't thought about the motivational poster at 630!! It's not going to look like anything!
I must agree--the textures challenge really suffered at 630. (at least I think that one was basic...)
edited to add: I've been happy that so many recently have been advanced editing--not because I wanted the extra editing techniques, but because I could have the 720 size.
Message edited by author 2009-05-06 19:51:05. |
|
|
|
05/06/2009 07:55:09 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
I'm wholly in support of another increase, and I'd like to see a substantial one, say 960px. I think that this is supportable on today's hardware. The example of LevT's shot points up just how much more powerful images are at that size than at DPC size. There are a few issues that SC/Admins would need to address:
- Slow downloads for dialup users. The last poll in November 2007 put the percentage of dialup users at 3.1%, and we're 18 months down the road from that. I suspect the number is now about 1.5%.
- Affect on users who pay by bandwwidth used; I don't know if there are a significant number of users who pay per megabyte anymore (some parts of EU used to do this, perhaps still do?)
- The implied advantage for landscape images, which fit monitors better, especially the wide-screen monitors in general use today. |
The expatriate SC speaks out against his ilk......8>)
I'm a previous dialup user....count me into the lower number.
I just put up a new panoramic background on my widescreen monitor, and WOW!!!!
I guess I'd have to say that I back the repeated requests for larger image size.
Oh.....if it'll drive up the costs, I know if you took a poll that people would be fine with ponying up more money.....especially the squawkers, right?
I know I'd certainly pony up a few more dollars.
|
|
|
|
05/06/2009 08:13:50 PM · #25 |
One small thing I'd like to point out: On my wife's Mac Book Pro I can't see the whole image with 720 px challenge pics. That being said, A 15" display isn't exactly the norm either.
|
|
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 05:32:43 AM EDT.
