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 101 - 125 of 319, (reverse)
AuthorThread
04/29/2005 12:48:48 PM · #101
The pop-up blocker issue: most pop-up blocker software has a way to "allow on certain websites" since we all know that D&L wouldn't torture us with pop-ups, we can safely allow pop-ups at dpchallenge.com and then it's a one time setting.

THis can be done in the mozilla browser, not sure about toolbars though, but I can't imagine they wouldn't want that feature in.
04/29/2005 01:47:54 PM · #102
Originally posted by eckoe:

The pop-up blocker issue: most pop-up blocker software has a way to "allow on certain websites" since we all know that D&L wouldn't torture us with pop-ups, we can safely allow pop-ups at dpchallenge.com and then it's a one time setting.

THis can be done in the mozilla browser, not sure about toolbars though, but I can't imagine they wouldn't want that feature in.


Agreed, but the is placing a reliance on the client rather than the server, for you and me it might not be an issue but what percentage of current membership and future membership might be restricted by this, and then either leave the site or put a burden on the site admins?

As much as in theory it's a good solution, in practice it's simply unfeasible.
04/29/2005 02:11:37 PM · #103
Originally posted by DrJOnes:

There is another way it could be done to accomodate 800 pixels vertical size; but it may not be the best solution: a new window.


Ack! No more new windows! I think DPC is a bit inconsistent about when it pops up new windows as it is...
04/29/2005 06:25:47 PM · #104
Originally posted by muckpond:

Originally posted by DrJOnes:

There is another way it could be done to accomodate 800 pixels vertical size; but it may not be the best solution: a new window.


Ack! No more new windows! I think DPC is a bit inconsistent about when it pops up new windows as it is...

Indeed. I force all new windows into tabs anyway, and it's really strange watching two new tabs pop up, one of them empty, whenever I want to preview a post.

I can sympathize somewhat with the issue of vertical scrolling, but I think increasing the limits to a maximum of 800 wide by 640 tall in 200k would be good for the site overall.
04/29/2005 06:44:31 PM · #105
Originally posted by Zed Pobre:


I can sympathize somewhat with the issue of vertical scrolling, but I think increasing the limits to a maximum of 800 wide by 640 tall in 200k would be good for the site overall.


Agreed 800 X 640 is the largest PRACTICAL size allowed by the majority of screens. It also has the advantage that it is landscaped cropped to 10 X 8 which is a standard print sizing.

However, I disagree with expanding image pixel dimensions for these reasons:

1-Even at 800 X 640 it will still require a serious redesign of the voting screen. Vertical scrolling should not be acceptable.

2-At 800 X 640 the largest sized image cropped for standard 8 X 10 portraits would be 512 X 640. That is already allowed in the current rules so there is no improvement there.

3-Most important, though, is larger image sizes will show more of the inherent defects in less expensive, lower megapixel cameras putting people owning those cameras at an even greater disadvantage than they already are.


04/29/2005 07:13:33 PM · #106
Originally posted by glad2badad:

...and before you take me to task on that one


I'm not sure what you think I would be taking you to task on. The issue was having a resolution of 1280x1024 which if you couldn't fit a 640 pixel tall image (or even an 800 pixel tall image for that matter) in would mean that you had too much junk on your browser. You shouldn't hold a designer to expect having the viewable area reduced by that much.
04/29/2005 07:16:10 PM · #107
800x640 is unfair because it punishes photos in portrait orientation. In many cases portrait shots will be half the size of landscape shots.

Leave 640x640 alone, very few details are being lost imo. Plus the details that are being lost to size will definetely get lost to compression.

If it aint broke, dont fix it...
04/29/2005 07:57:42 PM · #108
Hey - I was being nice, you know, tongue in cheek about the post I had made yesterday vs the actual size of my monitor res after checking it today.

As far as fitting a 640 or 800 pixel image - take a look at the screenshot I posted before you go off making wild assumptions about "junk" on the browser. As far as I can tell, many of the people that have posted here have made similar observations about having to scroll, etc... Plus, did you know that when you use the F11 key you are forcing the browser to max out full screen...no "junk" involved, no address bar, no excess toolbars, etc... At "Full Screen" the 640 image just fits with maybe 25 pixels to spare - 800 will NOT fit.

As for what a designer expects, or not, check out my profile. I think you'll see that I'm rather familiar with meeting requirements and browser issues.

Keep smiling...have fun! ;^)

Originally posted by TechnoShroom:

Originally posted by glad2badad:

...and before you take me to task on that one


I'm not sure what you think I would be taking you to task on. The issue was having a resolution of 1280x1024 which if you couldn't fit a 640 pixel tall image (or even an 800 pixel tall image for that matter) in would mean that you had too much junk on your browser. You shouldn't hold a designer to expect having the viewable area reduced by that much.

04/29/2005 08:09:34 PM · #109
Looks like the debate is shifting...

' . substr('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/28742/thumb/172171.jpg', strrpos('//images.dpchallenge.com/images_portfolio/28742/thumb/172171.jpg', '/') + 1) . '

LOL
04/29/2005 08:30:20 PM · #110
Gawd ken, you're borderline demented... Or is that an insult? Make it TOTALLY demented. Better?

Robt.

Message edited by author 2005-04-29 20:30:35.
04/29/2005 09:31:07 PM · #111
Originally posted by eckoe:

The pop-up blocker issue: most pop-up blocker software has a way to "allow on certain websites" since we all know that D&L wouldn't torture us with pop-ups, we can safely allow pop-ups at dpchallenge.com and then it's a one time setting.

THis can be done in the mozilla browser, not sure about toolbars though, but I can't imagine they wouldn't want that feature in.


WE all know that. New users don't.

We need to keep the site friendly for the new user who signs up tomorrow as well.

-Terry
04/29/2005 10:34:57 PM · #112
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:

We need to keep the site friendly for the new user who signs up tomorrow as well.

-Terry


What?? A new user? Tomorrow? Geez, I aint got a thing to wear, the place is a mess, no food or beer in the fridge. Why wasn't I given any notice?? :-P

just funnin'
04/30/2005 12:25:21 AM · #113
Originally posted by glad2badad:

take a look at the screenshot I posted before you go off making wild assumptions


Your screenshot and other assertions were and still are irrelevant to my statement. As far as assumptions go you seem to be reading more into my statements than was actually written.

Message edited by author 2005-04-30 00:54:33.
04/30/2005 01:47:20 AM · #114
If anyone would like to try a little test, I'll take a 640 image and enlarge it to 800 and you tell me if it's just as printable. I'd bet it is. 100%.
04/30/2005 02:36:07 AM · #115
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.
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.


I just had one stolen by a bigtime NY-based template company with many affiliates/resellers - they used it for a flash animation banner - and was a featured template until yesterday (when they removed it from their database after complaints from me and one of their affiliates where I saw the photo). The original was at 800px (from another site). So if they use the image for web applications, then you do lose money. But that's the risk you have to take ... most of the time, you do see the unauthorized use of your work (or other DPCers do and report it here or to you directly - this is how I knew about my photo being used by someone else). And then you take action. The bottom line is, even with this experience, I still think 800 px is appropriate for a competition and critiquing site like DPC.
05/11/2005 12:25:33 PM · #116
What happened to this thread? Did DPC folks give their opinion?

-are
05/11/2005 12:28:28 PM · #117
Originally posted by Are_62:

What happened to this thread? Did DPC folks give their opinion?

Yes. Read the last 5 pages.
08/29/2005 11:47:07 AM · #118
Originally posted by Are_62:

What happened to this thread? Did DPC folks give their opinion?

Well, I didn't, but here it goes:
I agree (with the original idea that is - go 800).

Seriously, none of the arguments against seems valid anyway. There will always be this one fellow left with a 1200/75 split speed modem and a VIC20 with double tape recorders, but then again my gas station quit selling leaded fuel years ago, even though my old car needed it. I now have a new car and nature is happier for it.

Or to put it the Axl Rose way; Get in the ring mothe..[censored]

;-9
08/29/2005 12:05:58 PM · #119
Yes to 800x600. Maybe we could see a similar limitation to the Height to prevent scrolling on Portraits. I agree that this is a bit of a pain. Of course I am the lucky one there, I have a Tablet PC, so I can just hit a button and view my screen in portrait mode. I do this when reading Adobe Books. I feel that there should be no need to increase Pic size above 150k.

Thanks to Martin for keeping his eye out for the needs of a great website. I appreciate the pictures he posts as well :).
08/29/2005 12:06:17 PM · #120
I'm all for 800 pixels!!!
Don't know what we are waiting for...

08/29/2005 12:17:59 PM · #121
Originally posted by Donatien:

...Seriously, none of the arguments against seems valid anyway.


According to you...

There has been a lot of discussion in prior threads about 800 in place of 640. One of the bigger negatives I found was being able to see the entire image when it is in portrait mode without scrolling. The voting page takes up extra real estate (title, voting bar, etc...). There were other concerns, all of which were valid, previously discussed. Yes, there are some pro sides as well - don't think they outweigh the negative...

There has also been discussion about file size limits. It is a concern for many (prior polls, etc...) that have dial-up accounts (yes, there are many of us that CANNOT get anything other).

So, again, there are many arguments. Whether they are valid or not depends or YOUR point of view.

Let the debate begin...perhaps I should say "here we go AGAIN!".


08/29/2005 12:44:09 PM · #122
no... 800 is bigger than my monitor is tall and i'm not going to scroll through an image to see it. Period.

PS: I have been a member of a site where 1024 x 768 is allowed as the largest post size. Many members do use that and it's very annoying.

Message edited by author 2005-08-29 12:46:25.
08/29/2005 12:49:40 PM · #123
How about a compromise to suit both the 640 and 800px camps?... An option to upload two versions of an image, and in the preferences section a radio button to choose the image size you will see (ie either max side of 640 or 800).

Any opinions?

Message edited by author 2005-08-29 16:31:15.
08/29/2005 01:17:44 PM · #124
How about maximum size of 800x640? 800px is vertically too much for a web site, while it horizontally adds a lot more punch to landscape views.

(edit: That's what I think. 640x640 works fine, so there's no reason to panic. I truely understand you people with smaller screens or dial-up connections, although I myself have no such limitations.)

Message edited by author 2005-08-29 13:19:28.
08/29/2005 02:35:54 PM · #125
I'm all for maximum size to allow no scroll on 1024x768 (although I'm running 1900x1200).

Actually I feel 640x640 is room to breathe as the last online photo contest I was used to entering was a max of about 385x385 and 60kb.
Pages:   ...
Current Server Time: 08/06/2021 12:50:19 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 12:50:19 AM EDT.