DA Photo Contest Forum / Photography / Photography Discussion / OOFs at full size / Latest Posts

RE: OOFs at full size

Stormhaven — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 17:00:02 GMT

I, also, have seen quite a few (many?) that just do not hold the quality when loaded to be seen at full size. I know that many (most?) viewers are not looking at the full size version. How do I know? Because their rating is often 1-2 points higher than mine. It doesn't always work that way, but frequently it does. Other than those situations, my votes are very close to what others are rating the photos.

Some pics are so sharp that you KNOW the full size version will look great, but some can be seen to have lost quality before you even look at the maximized version I feel that the photographer has chosen to run that risk when they don't load at 640X on the long side. It's a shame, actually, that some good shots are rated down because of the decision made.

RE: OOFs at full size

Tonka — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:09:30 GMT

Oh , I do tell the photog when I have taken a point off if full size is not as nice..

RE: OOFs at full size

Tonka — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:08:18 GMT

I would agree that the majority does not view the full size..

I do many times...there are some which, admittedly, I know I do not necessesarily need to open in full size. I think I view at the very least, half of them in full if there is one though..

For me..it definitely affects the score..I do vote down if the full size is much worse..and I definitely vote up for those few that just are fantastic in full size..I think that it is deserving of reward if the full size is wayyy better ..and I have commented on how thankful I was to be able to get to view such skill. :)

jmo

RE: OOFs at full size

hahn23 — Tue, 15 Apr 2008 07:01:30 GMT

Just want to say that not all full size versions of images are oof. Gord Barter's [url=http://www.dailyawards.com/image_viewer.aspx?ImageID=119573][size="2"]"Someone's Coming!"[/size][/url] Daily winner on April 15, 2008 is an example of a very good image which holds up fairly well in [url=http://www.dailyawards.com/full_image.aspx?Encryption=Yes&ImageID=lc05DgW3D2c%253d][size="2"]the full size view[/size][/url].

Congratulations, Gord, on your Daily Winner.

With no offense intended to Gord and his image, it is my opinion that viewing the full size version is not necessarily beneficial to how I would score the 640 pixel version. Doesn't hurt, but probably wouldn't cause me to add score. No matter whose image we are discussing, the full size version will reveal flaws that are inconspicuous in the voting window version. At least, the full size view invites inspection and scrutiny of details. In the case of Gord's image, the inspection passes. This is not the common situation, as many full size images do not look better and sometimes look terrible.

Some info on Gord's image....

640 x 575 pixel voting window version is at 73.12 Kb.

1000 x 898 pixel full size version is at 206.25 Kb.

That file size relationship is normal. However, I would guess that if Gord had uploaded a 640 x 575 pixel image to the contest, rather than the 1000 pixel version, the voting window version would have been 200+ kb. in file size. I think the resizer process reduces the file size, even though it is set to 100% quality. Just a function of jpg compression, I think. Uploading a 640 pixel version of an image avoids the resizer process, hence sidestepping the jpg compression in order to retain the full quality file size.

So, what's the point of my long-winded commentary? One needs to assess whether a full size version of an image will assist the score, or not. And, will most, or any, members actually take time to look at the full size version. When I see new members voting on nearly a thousand images per day, it's clear to me they aren't taking much time to carefully assess the quality of images.... technically and artistically. Therefore, I think one wants to put the best presentation in the 640 pixel voting window. Nothing wrong with uploading a big one. Just be aware that when sized down to the voting window size, it may not be the presentation you expect. And, it's only a small percentage of images that hold up well when presented at the 100% pixel view.

RE: OOFs at full size

hahn23 — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 19:36:30 GMT

<<>> <<>>

I do want everyone to see this thread. it's important!

Selfishly, I want to view the best possible presentations in my voting window. Those could be full size images, if properly processed through the workflow. But, more often than not, the best images are full resolution images sized to 640 pixels on the longest dimension, proportions constrained.

RE: OOFs at full size

hahn23 — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 16:35:37 GMT

[quote][b]Stormhaven (4/14/2008)[/b][hr]....It seems as though a lot of people are submitting shots larger than the 640x resize, and then when viewed at full size the photo quality deteriorates......[/quote]
[color="indigo"]Quick quiz question. How many of the major awards (not category) on the front page have "View at Full Size" options? Okay, it was a trick question, but very important to notice.

I, too, have observed how terribly oof some (most) images are at oversized dimensions. It's a serious problem.... as in a major distraction. I try to avoid marking down an image's score if it looks good at 640 pixels, but terrible at 2000 pixels, but I'll bet I've left 20 comments on the oof problem in the past few days.

My guess is that people are cropping down an original for compositional purposes. And, then they are turning around and upsizing the image..... beyond the pixels available.... to a size that is allowed.... 2000 pixels for subscribers and 1000 pixels for registered users. When this choice is made, the postprocessing application chooses to interpolate pixels. In other words, add pixels where there weren't pixels in the first place. This "nearest neighbor" resampling degrades the sharpness and clarity and color of an image. Ironically, when the DA resizer sizes down the image to fit in the 640 pixel constraint of the voting window, some of the interpolation degradation is mitigated. But, the damage remains in the full size view.

Also, there is a problem with uploading big images at large file size. I've found through extensive experimentation that the resizer chops down the file size, as it discards shot data, when going from the uploaded version to the voting window version. (Eric, I know you've stated that voting window displays are at 100%. I believe you. I just can't test that on my own images.)

Therefore, I've been constraining my images to 640 pixels on the longest dimension. This avoids the resizing process of the resizer engine and retains file size and image clarity, color and sharpness. That said, full size images can be uploaded with good sharpness and clarity, but only if they are downsized from the original pixel dimensions. Upsizing is dangerous to the quality of your image presentation[/color].

OOFs at full size

Stormhaven — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 15:55:51 GMT

Would like to hear your opinion. What is a fair score for a photograph that is OOF and/or noisy as seen at full size? It seems as though a lot of people are submitting shots larger than the 640x resize, and then when viewed at full size the photo quality deteriorates. This doesn't even take into consideration the "quick comment" problems that are apparent. So, what do you think? I should say that there are some pics that stay sharp no matter what.