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

Threads will be shown in descending order for the remainder of this session. To permanently display posts in this order, adjust your preferences.
DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> 800 pixels photos in Members Challenges.
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 319, descending (reverse)
AuthorThread
03/17/2006 12:20:54 AM · #1
Discussion moved.
03/15/2006 03:49:46 PM · #2
Originally posted by riot:

Why not enforce it so the image has to be exactly 640 on at least one side?

When I submit a portrait oriented image I usually make it less than 640 pixels tall to reduce the need for scrolling on most monitors.
03/15/2006 02:46:15 PM · #3
Originally posted by riot:

Why not enforce it so the image has to be exactly 640 on at least one side?

Some prefer the ratio to be exact when reducing -- it makes less dithering (hope that's the right word, half-asleep) between pixels. By choosing a size that deals only with full pixels on the resize, more detail is preserved -- or so the theory goes.

Also, there are times when the detail of the image just doesn't fit into 150K at 640 at the longest. Reducing the size a bit gives more bytes to the details.

David

Message edited by author 2006-03-15 14:48:20.
03/15/2006 10:59:01 AM · #4
Why not enforce it so the image has to be exactly 640 on at least one side?
03/14/2006 09:58:33 PM · #5
Originally posted by hubbardr1:

Is there a good case for any image being smaller than say...320?

If you want a 4:1 panoramic you can do that with the current 160x640 limits. A 320 pixel limit would make a 2:1 most extreme pano you could make ...
03/14/2006 08:02:49 PM · #6
This has probably already been mentioned (I'm too lazy to read or search the 10000 replies) but, I'd rather see a new minimum size enforced. 640 is plenty big enough...but there are some images posted that I couldnt see 2 inches from the monitor. Some would argue that this is the photographers responsibility... but it ends up just being a waste of time for everyone. Is there a good case for any image being smaller than say...320?

I'd like a new vote to increase the minimum size to at least 320px. Lets leave the max alone.
03/13/2006 09:49:14 PM · #7
Originally posted by riot:

Don't know about the rest of you suggesting this auto-resizing business, but i personally take a lot of time and care when i resize. At 640 i spend quite a long time ensuring the sharpening is just right on my image at that resolution. If it's advanced, once i've resized and sharpened, i have one last check for anything that needs cloning.

I would be very upset indeed if i'd spent all this time and effort on an 800 pixel image, just to have some moronic script interpolate it down to 640, losing tons of detail and sharpness not to mention my carefully tuned sharpening work... and to think that some would vote on this machine-produced image, while others vote on my actual artwork, upsets me somewhat. And it should upset you too if you care about how people view your art.


I'd second this!
I'm still voting for 800 :) no auto-resize!
03/13/2006 09:21:08 AM · #8
Only four days til i don't have to scroll past that damn poll anymore...
03/11/2006 02:22:58 PM · #9
Originally posted by goinskiing:

Quick question, I once stumbled upon all the poll results and can't for the life of me remember where they are. Anyone kow where to find 'em?


//www.dpchallenge.com/poll_results.php
03/11/2006 01:59:33 PM · #10
I'd rather have an increase in size allowance than pixels... As it is, I can barely fit the 640 vertically on my monitor... and I'm running at max res... (1280x800)
03/11/2006 01:54:57 PM · #11
Quick question, I once stumbled upon all the poll results and can't for the life of me remember where they are. Anyone kow where to find 'em?
03/11/2006 01:51:12 PM · #12
I'm all for Prop. 800!
03/11/2006 12:38:59 PM · #13
Originally posted by riot:

I'd rather see an increase in filesize limit and not in size. People who say it'd still be ok for dialup users to see 800x800 shots if the filesize is kept small are missing the point entirely - a lot of us already struggle to compress 640's down to 150k without losing detail. If the size were increased, people would vote down anything that's smaller than the max size on principle, and force photographers to water down their quality by overcompressing. It's an ugly direction to take.


I agree with you. I would rather see the 150k change to either 200k or 250k than to up the pixels.
03/11/2006 12:33:53 PM · #14
Originally posted by yanko:


I'm so disappointed. :) There is no significant advantage between a 640 image vs an 800 image when viewed on a high resolution monitor but there is a significant disadvantage on lower resolutions when you have to scroll. If I was one of those people that had to do that I'd stop voting altogether. How can you experience the photo when you can't even look at the entire thing at once? To go off subject, this makes as much sense as giving the rich another tax break. At least with that idea there is suppose to be some sort of trickle down effect. What's that effect here? Ok where are my meds?


Now, you are making me second-guess my conversion ... LOL... geeez ... if I start losing sleep over this, I'm gonna be upset ...:-P
03/11/2006 12:28:53 PM · #15
Originally posted by riot:

I'd rather see an increase in filesize limit and not in size. People who say it'd still be ok for dialup users to see 800x800 shots if the filesize is kept small are missing the point entirely - a lot of us already struggle to compress 640's down to 150k without losing detail. If the size were increased, people would vote down anything that's smaller than the max size on principle, and force photographers to water down their quality by overcompressing. It's an ugly direction to take.


Ditto, you nailed it. I struggle to get very detailed shots down to 150k now.

I would be for 800x800 if the limit were say 300k. I find it sad that server space costs has dropped significantly in the last few years, but the DPC hasn't changed with the times.
03/11/2006 11:16:45 AM · #16
I'd rather see an increase in filesize limit and not in size. People who say it'd still be ok for dialup users to see 800x800 shots if the filesize is kept small are missing the point entirely - a lot of us already struggle to compress 640's down to 150k without losing detail. If the size were increased, people would vote down anything that's smaller than the max size on principle, and force photographers to water down their quality by overcompressing. It's an ugly direction to take.
03/11/2006 12:01:26 AM · #17
Originally posted by fotomann_forever:

I was defending the 640 limit for reasons of server overhead and dial-up users.

I've been thinking about it a bit. I've decided to vote for 800x800, because of this. This is a photography site. It is expected to be graphics intensive. So, dialup users expect, for the most part, that pages are going to take a bit to load. Also, even if images are 200k, it's not going to take THAT much longer per image to load.

Server overhead must not be an issue if the poll is up and admins are actually considering it. So, that no longer bothers me.

Scrolling, oh well, it will just give voters a bit more time to think about each image. Might be a plus.

I say let's go 800x800. Hey, everyone is entitled to change thier minds :-)


I'm so disappointed. :) There is no significant advantage between a 640 image vs an 800 image when viewed on a high resolution monitor but there is a significant disadvantage on lower resolutions when you have to scroll. If I was one of those people that had to do that I'd stop voting altogether. How can you experience the photo when you can't even look at the entire thing at once? To go off subject, this makes as much sense as giving the rich another tax break. At least with that idea there is suppose to be some sort of trickle down effect. What's that effect here? Ok where are my meds?

Message edited by author 2006-03-11 00:07:14.
03/10/2006 10:56:54 PM · #18
Can we add in a file size limit (members only maybe) increase poll?

I've had to skip some challenge entries that had too much detail already...
03/10/2006 10:49:20 PM · #19
I was defending the 640 limit for reasons of server overhead and dial-up users.

I've been thinking about it a bit. I've decided to vote for 800x800, because of this. This is a photography site. It is expected to be graphics intensive. So, dialup users expect, for the most part, that pages are going to take a bit to load. Also, even if images are 200k, it's not going to take THAT much longer per image to load.

Server overhead must not be an issue if the poll is up and admins are actually considering it. So, that no longer bothers me.

Scrolling, oh well, it will just give voters a bit more time to think about each image. Might be a plus.

I say let's go 800x800. Hey, everyone is entitled to change thier minds :-)
03/10/2006 10:37:14 PM · #20
Originally posted by jadin:

The whole point is that anyone with a 'newer' monitor is viewing at larger resolutions. Making a 640 image very difficult to see. I'll buy those who need a new monitor one if they pay for my laser eye surgery.


I'm on 1600x1200 and 640x640 images look good on my monitor. I don't need to see skin pours the size of grapefruits to determine a photo is good or not. :)

Message edited by author 2006-03-10 22:37:42.
03/10/2006 10:29:33 PM · #21
Originally posted by cpanaioti:

Originally posted by reevey:

Would it be too awkward to have a 640 height limit but 800 width? That way we can have slightly bigger pictures but it would avoid the scrolling problem. Apologies if it's already been suggested, haven't had time to go thru 12 pages!!


Wouldn't that give advantage to landscape orientations over portrait?

Yep...and it's all been discussed a few pages back. ;^)
03/10/2006 09:43:22 PM · #22
Originally posted by reevey:

Would it be too awkward to have a 640 height limit but 800 width? That way we can have slightly bigger pictures but it would avoid the scrolling problem. Apologies if it's already been suggested, haven't had time to go thru 12 pages!!


Wouldn't that give advantage to landscape orientations over portrait?
03/10/2006 09:07:01 PM · #23
Would it be too awkward to have a 640 height limit but 800 width? That way we can have slightly bigger pictures but it would avoid the scrolling problem. Apologies if it's already been suggested, haven't had time to go thru 12 pages!!
03/10/2006 09:01:30 PM · #24
I voted for 640. But I would vote for or unlimited filesize.
The Viewing is best for most monitors with max file size 640x640 but the restraining part, 150 KB is just to destroy a perfectly good picture.
I just uploaded to my portfolio a picture of a mountain. It is 640x480 but 235 KB in size. If I would take it down to 150 KB all sharpness would disappear.
03/08/2006 02:47:35 PM · #25
Don't know about the rest of you suggesting this auto-resizing business, but i personally take a lot of time and care when i resize. At 640 i spend quite a long time ensuring the sharpening is just right on my image at that resolution. If it's advanced, once i've resized and sharpened, i have one last check for anything that needs cloning.

I would be very upset indeed if i'd spent all this time and effort on an 800 pixel image, just to have some moronic script interpolate it down to 640, losing tons of detail and sharpness not to mention my carefully tuned sharpening work... and to think that some would vote on this machine-produced image, while others vote on my actual artwork, upsets me somewhat. And it should upset you too if you care about how people view your art.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/06/2021 12:11:23 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 © 2001-2021 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: 08/06/2021 12:11:23 AM EDT.