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

DPChallenge Forums >> Web Site Suggestions >> 800 pixels photos in Members Challenges.
Pages:   ...
Showing posts 51 - 75 of 319, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/28/2005 11:29:57 AM · #51
Originally posted by cghubbell:

Originally posted by muckpond:

i don't think that the difference between a 640 image and an 800 image is going to lead to a huge rash of image theft, but it DOES happen and it's a valid concern. of course, it could happen no matter where you post your images online.


I'm sure it has happened to many people... Heck, it has probably happened to me and I haven't discovered it yet. My point was that I question whether people were truly harmed by it happening to the point where it needs to be treated as an infringement on their existence.

If someone swipes one of my 600 or 800 px images, I equate it someone who doesn't know me walking by on the street and and saying "You're a jerk!". Was it wrong? Sure. Will it harm or effect me in any way? Not on my most creative day.

For the average amateur out there, image theft is not really worth the stress people give it. If one grows from amatuer to pro and needs to protect their work, they have the originals and can defend themself against infringement. In the mean time, it's probably a better investment of energy to work on *getting oneself* to the point where it matters than stressing about it.


i 'll second that
04/28/2005 11:53:30 AM · #52
I think that 800px is the way to go, and that image theft would be negligible.
Some modification to the voting page would allow for the bigger image. I suggest removing the gray scale bar to a page of its own and making the numbers in the voting bar vertical along side of the image.
That would probably eliminate scrolling for the smaller monitors.
04/28/2005 12:10:57 PM · #53
I wonder how many voters actually know what it is, and or use the gray scale?

Originally posted by autool:

I think that 800px is the way to go, and that image theft would be negligible.
Some modification to the voting page would allow for the bigger image. I suggest removing the gray scale bar to a page of its own and making the numbers in the voting bar vertical along side of the image.
That would probably eliminate scrolling for the smaller monitors.
04/28/2005 12:41:35 PM · #54
Originally posted by Truegsht:

I score 4 and below most of the time anyway..so I don't see how changing would hurt me much. I'm all for it! Make the change...you have my vote.

Why score so low? Your average recived is much higher that that which you give out.
Afraid of big numbers?
04/28/2005 12:42:54 PM · #55
I too am in favor of 800.
//www.fujimugs.com has had 800 with a 150k filesize since the beginning. Check them out - no jpeg artifacts, no one complaining about image theft.
It is tried and tested.
04/28/2005 01:28:08 PM · #56
1024x768 may be the web average but here I would think it is higher, as this is kind of a special intrest group about imaging and I would believe people, on average, are running slightly higher then normal resolutions and monitors because of it. Somone should look in the logs and see if 1024x768 is the average here before the debate gets too far along.
04/28/2005 01:47:00 PM · #57
For what it's worth - I happen to work at a very large Internet company, and of course we are monitoring screen resolutions as it impacts our design and usability. We also get reports from some Internet monitoring companies, and here's the latest numbers for Internet Average of screen resolutions (order descending in percentage):
1024x768 - 52.3%
800x600 - 21.9%
1280x1024 - 9.5%
1152x864 - 3.2%
1280x800 - 1.6%
1400x1050 - 1.0%
1600x1200 - 1.0%
1400x864 - 1.0%
1280x864 - 0.9%
1280x768 - 0.4%

The tail is long, but if you look at it overall, somewhere around 78% overall run a resolution higher than 800x600.
04/28/2005 02:01:18 PM · #58
Originally posted by kirbic:

Remember that nobody is talking about increasing the allowable file size, so there would be no change in download time, bandwidth used, or server storage required.


Actually several people have mentioned 200k and 250k as a new size limit. Not being argumentative, just keeping ya straight ' . substr('//www.anorenn.com/emoticons/laugh.gif', strrpos('//www.anorenn.com/emoticons/laugh.gif', '/') + 1) . '
04/28/2005 02:25:47 PM · #59
Yep, and I'll bet we're all running MAC's too? He-he

Sorry, I fit into the 1024x768 group, and I use MS Windows. ;^)

Originally posted by Spitfire:

1024x768 may be the web average but here I would think it is higher, as this is kind of a special intrest group about imaging and I would believe people, on average, are running slightly higher then normal resolutions and monitors because of it. Somone should look in the logs and see if 1024x768 is the average here before the debate gets too far along.
04/28/2005 02:30:09 PM · #60
I am on 1024x1280 - portrait mode. Don't think this adds anything to the discussion. Please feel free to ignore.
04/28/2005 02:53:15 PM · #61
1024 x 768 here... My laptop is 1200 x 800 iirc, but it's not the best for judging pictures. I don't see a reason to upgrade the image sizes. However, i'm not opposed to DJ's work being allowed to be posted in higher rez. :-P
04/28/2005 02:54:21 PM · #62
I wondered how long it would be before someone made that observation! Big grin... ;^)

Originally posted by kyebosh:

1024 x 768 here... My laptop is 1200 x 800 iirc, but it's not the best for judging pictures. I don't see a reason to upgrade the image sizes. However, i'm not opposed to DJ's work being allowed to be posted in higher rez. :-P
04/28/2005 03:11:58 PM · #63
Imagen when you found DPC that the images were 800px on the widest side... you would not be asking for 640px... you just would go with the flow... As said before this change would affect 20% of people on the site then the 80% of the other people have to stick to the 640 because of this 20% of people.. i am not trying to be selfish but this in no other place would have any thought on it the changes would had been made at much longer time...
If you really like DPC i am certain that those 20% would make an effort to upgrade or to bend there work place to fit in...

Sorry for the bad english hope you understand what i am trying to say...
These are just my thought i in anyway am trying to pcik a rant... so if i ofended someone sorry. but it is no my intend.
04/28/2005 03:37:32 PM · #64
I see that many people think that you can’t make a print that is worth a darn from an 800x600 pixel image. I beg to differ. Not too long ago I had a lady show me a bunch of 4x6’’ images of mine that she had downloaded from my web site and printed. The pictures looked very decent and the files on my web site were actually 600x400 resolution.

I say keep the image size the way it is.

Tom
04/28/2005 03:50:56 PM · #65
Originally posted by ovenbird:

I see that many people think that you can’t make a print that is worth a darn from an 800x600 pixel image. I beg to differ. Not too long ago I had a lady show me a bunch of 4x6’’ images of mine that she had downloaded from my web site and printed. The pictures looked very decent and the files on my web site were actually 600x400 resolution.

I say keep the image size the way it is.

Tom


I truly don't want to sound argumentative, but if a 400x600 image can be printed at 4x6 with sorta OK results (it can) then what is the difference between that and a 640x800 image? Only a slight increase in linear resolution.
Bottom line, if someone will steal the image, they will do so whether it is at 640 or 800 in the long direction. The ugly truth is that if there is enough detail present for it to look good on the web, then a decent small print can be made.
A number of other posters have commented that the economic impact to the vast majority of us, even those that DO sell prints, would be exactly zero. You still can't make any quality of large (salable) print from either a 640px or 800px image.
04/28/2005 03:56:40 PM · #66
Something to consider here will be the members ability to use software if an 800 pixels@150K is allowed.
A lot of challenge shots now have compression issues at 640 pixels.
Once in a while, a very highly detailed shot can be very difficult to get under 150K without artifacts.

Hate to see it become a software challenge rather than a photographic challenge. (well kind of is now, but in a different way)

Message edited by author 2005-04-28 15:57:11.
04/28/2005 04:04:50 PM · #67
I say YES to 800 too!!!

But only if you, DrJones, will start posting some shots of Masuimi here!!!

;-P
04/28/2005 04:08:45 PM · #68
I actually find myself already scrolling with the current restriction... even at 1024 x 768. This IE program takes up too much space and even full screened it doesn't like to let the photos quite fit. I suppose i could use f11 all the time but really, i don't like to go outside my normal browsing setup. Change is bad.
04/28/2005 04:10:45 PM · #69
I'm against the idea, too, because I oftentimes do my voting with an old laptop that only really supports 800x600 resolution. The 640 limit seems to be plenty, IMO.
04/28/2005 04:16:21 PM · #70
Because while 600x400 and 640x480 look pretty good, 800x600 looks very good in print.

Tom

Originally posted by kirbic:

Originally posted by ovenbird:

I see that many people think that you can’t make a print that is worth a darn from an 800x600 pixel image. I beg to differ. Not too long ago I had a lady show me a bunch of 4x6’’ images of mine that she had downloaded from my web site and printed. The pictures looked very decent and the files on my web site were actually 600x400 resolution.

I say keep the image size the way it is.

Tom


I truly don't want to sound argumentative, but if a 400x600 image can be printed at 4x6 with sorta OK results (it can) then what is the difference between that and a 640x800 image? Only a slight increase in linear resolution.
Bottom line, if someone will steal the image, they will do so whether it is at 640 or 800 in the long direction. The ugly truth is that if there is enough detail present for it to look good on the web, then a decent small print can be made.
A number of other posters have commented that the economic impact to the vast majority of us, even those that DO sell prints, would be exactly zero. You still can't make any quality of large (salable) print from either a 640px or 800px image.
04/28/2005 04:16:40 PM · #71
A couple folks have mentioned this... but I'm really curious to see an example. I've seen shots here and there where .jpg artificats have been an issue, but I can't recall seeing one where the photographer submitted it while taking advantage of the 150K limit.

The shots that are affected by .jpg artifacts come from folks that don't use compression properly, and wind up uploading 30K files, and so forth. I'd love to see an example of a 150k shot that suffers from poor .jpg resolution...!

Originally posted by hyperfocal:

Just to throw in my $.02, I think a better suggestion would be to up the file size limit to say 200k is more important than a size increase (which I also support). i see many photos that suffer from compression artifacting.
04/28/2005 05:08:29 PM · #72
Originally posted by kirbic:



I truly don't want to sound argumentative, but if a 400x600 image can be printed at 4x6 with sorta OK results (it can) then what is the difference between that and a 640x800 image? Only a slight increase in linear resolution.


600x400 = 240,000
800 x 640 = 512,000

512,000/240,000 = 2.133 times more pixels per square inch.
04/28/2005 05:53:58 PM · #73
Originally posted by nico_blue:

I am against increasing image size to 800... my biggest arguement against it is that it would disproportionally affect non dslr owners more than the others. With 640 you can get away with a lot of things but i feel with that 800 pixels which is a 150% increase in terms of pixel number (800x800 vs 640x640) a lot of camera limitations will begin to manifest.


If you have a 1 Mp camera sure .... but I seriously doubt the increase from 640 to 800 will have any detrimental effect at all most, if not all, of the cameras found here.

I'm all for this idea.
04/28/2005 06:23:32 PM · #74
I'm against it. Not that any of you are bothered about that, since the wave seems to be flowing. ' . substr('//www.stack.myby.co.uk/smile_files/pirate.gif', strrpos('//www.stack.myby.co.uk/smile_files/pirate.gif', '/') + 1) . '

I'm primarily against it because I think the arguments for it are not yet well developed. I once proposed that users be given the option to select different resolutions for viewing, and I was promptly slapped with the attitude that such and such didn't want "MY pictures resized by software" which meant that users would have to upload two or three different copies in order to protect the quality of their photos. Funny thing is, nobody seems to mind when pbase resizes photos on the fly, so I'm baffled as to why it would be a problem here.

Let's face it, folks. A huge percentage of people can only spend a few seconds analyzing these pictures that we spend hours preparing and submitting. If the detail is so miniscule that it is lost by resizing to 640 instead of to 800, it's probably not going to be appreciated by a huge percentage of viewer/voters anyway.

Those of you who maintain that 20% of the users (800x600) shouldn't dictate the policy of the site need to sit back and think for a minute. There are MANY less than 20% of the site users active in this forum, so you have no clue as to what the real site preference is. There are probably around 20 people participating is this discussion, while there are something over 10000 users??? What's THAT percentage? .2%?? Now THAT is a real case of a minority making decisions for the majority! ' . substr('//www.humbleego.com/emoticons/d_nerd.gif', strrpos('//www.humbleego.com/emoticons/d_nerd.gif', '/') + 1) . ' Before a major site policy change is forced on all those unsuspecting folk, many of whom are paying their membership regularly, perhaps there should be discussions with site council, site admins, etc, about the difficulties of the coding, when it could be made to happen, whether it would continue to interfere with the DPCPrints 2, and possibly have a public poll about the matter - IF IT IS DEEMED POSSIBLE.

Many of you seem to be making the assumption that only backward bumpkins like myself are holding DPC back from progressing to the modern world. There may be other concerns, and I've yet to hear (read) any arguments which prove to me that this is a necessity. It currently seems to be a PREFERENCE of SOME, and there is a huge difference.

Just my thoughts and considerations. Hope I don't offend ' . substr('//www.jms101.btinternet.co.uk/full_sets/gold/circular_bold_std/clown.gif', strrpos('//www.jms101.btinternet.co.uk/full_sets/gold/circular_bold_std/clown.gif', '/') + 1) . '
04/28/2005 06:24:29 PM · #75
And what kind of upgrade do you suggest for this 20% group of people?

Buy a larger monitor? At home I already have a 19" and it's just cutting it with the 640 limit (see my earlier post today in this thread). I suppose I could max out my resolution to make 800 work...but I'm already wearing glasses as it is. ;^)

At work I have a 17" monitor and I really don't foresee my asking for a new monitor anytime soon as it's perfectly acceptable now for what I do. "Hey boss - I need a bigger monitor so I can goof off while I'm supposed to be working." Sorry, have a mortgage to pay and I for one need my job. ;^)

Now this 20% may be a low number based on something else I saw earlier in this thread about current monitors in use...I don't have the numbers right in front of me but wasn't it something close to 60% of people are at 1024x768 resolution?

Now if the file size goes up...nobody has says it would or wouldn't, just a suggestion...well I'm screwed there because cable is not available where I live (am I alone or do others have the same problem?), DSL isn't a option at all. Satellite may be viable but the start up cost (installation, etc...) is prohibitive (Internet capable dish and hook-up are different than TV), and the monthly expense for service is double what I pay for dial-up.

Those are just a couple of obstacles I can think of being one of the (quote)20%'ers (unquote) and having to "upgrade or bend".

Originally posted by Discraft:

Imagen when you found DPC that the images were 800px on the widest side... you would not be asking for 640px... you just would go with the flow... As said before this change would affect 20% of people on the site then the 80% of the other people have to stick to the 640 because of this 20% of people.. i am not trying to be selfish but this in no other place would have any thought on it the changes would had been made at much longer time...
If you really like DPC i am certain that those 20% would make an effort to upgrade or to bend there work place to fit in...

Sorry for the bad english hope you understand what i am trying to say...
These are just my thought i in anyway am trying to pcik a rant... so if i ofended someone sorry. but it is no my intend.

Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 07/28/2021 02:17:01 PM

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: 07/28/2021 02:17:01 PM EDT.