 Posted 8/12/2008 3:36:55 AM
|
|
|
|
While I understand what you are saying I disagree with option 1. What you are proposing is basically catering to the least common denominator at the expense of those that know how to use the added resolution. There are images that can only be properly displayed at higher resolution. Some images, without the benefit of showing the detail captured fail to convey the true story of the image.
.[/quote]
By this comment, I understand that you assume that anyone who uploads at less than 2000 doesn't understand how to use added resolution, and don't submit images whose story is told at higher resolution. This is pompass and selfish. I happen to know that there are people who would rather load max res but are restricted from doing so.
When I do my conversions, I go RAW to TIFF, TIFF to JPG and downsize from there. With the conversion and downsizing, I loose quality and the upload does not represent the true image. I'm a fairly new and non-paid member, so there are more restrictions on me. I don't expect to really compete and win against the expert photogs here, but I would like to have a bit my latitude in my uploads. I know my photos look better on my computer than they do on this site. I totally agree with Richard that uploads around 1k+ for ALL would be the best way to go. Of course, the panaramas would be allowed more size by the very nature of the photo, so the restriction being moved to the short side could well be the answer to the delema.
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 6:13:01 AM
|
|
|
|
Having an image no larger than the usable space on the browser has a few advantages, the biggest being a controlled resizing (as I doubt anybody takes pictures sized 640 pixels).
I think I am with the OP on this one, as many large size images tend to prejudice due to the resizing blur on the voting screen, and prejudice is very hard to overcome with quality.
If you have a problem with reality, quit taking photos and take up painting
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 7:14:46 AM
|
|
|
|
426px on the shortest side is way too big what if someone enters a panorama?? other sites are 160px on the short. I suggest 160px on the shortest side.
As for the longest side I suggest 720 and files not allowed over 200kb. This would also do better things for the server.
Joe
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 7:21:06 AM
|
|
|
|
DFish (8/12/2008)
....When I do my conversions, I go RAW to TIFF, TIFF to JPG and downsize from there. With the conversion and downsizing, I loose quality and the upload does not represent the true image. ...
If you convert to JPG and then downsize, you could be reducing your image quality, as your workflow suggests you are performing at least two file saves in the JPG format. JPG compression, by definition, discards pixels and interpolates between "like neighbors" of remaining pixels.... that's how the JPG format results in a smaller file size. Each JPG file "save" will reduce image quality by 2-3%. Suggest you perform your resizing operation on the TIFF format file. Only as a last step should you convert to JPG for Internet upload purposes.
Furthermore, images larger than 640 pixels on the longest dimension will be subjected to an additional conversion by the site's image resizer. Eric (Admin) has stated that the JPG quality is set to 100% for voting window purposes. That said, it's yet another JPG conversion.... which could result in additional loss of image quality.
The image deterioration from JPG "saves" is cumulative. JPG format is the only format allowed for uploads here. The key to retaining image quality is to convert to this "lossy" format as the last step only. All other post processing work should be applied to the image in one of the "lossless" formats.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 7:25:04 AM
|
|
|
|
Dirt_Diver (8/12/2008)
426px on the shortest side is way too big what if someone enters a panorama?? other sites are 160px on the short. I suggest 160px on the shortest side.
As for the longest side I suggest 720 and files not allowed over 200kb. This would also do better things for the server.
Joe
Joe, what site(s) constrain image submissions to 160 pixels on the shortest side? That is not much bigger than a thumbnail, so seems quite small to me. I'm not doubting your word.... just would like to visit the sites with such a limit.
My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 7:33:26 AM
|
|
|
|
hahn23 (8/12/2008)
Dirt_Diver (8/12/2008)
426px on the shortest side is way too big what if someone enters a panorama?? other sites are 160px on the short. I suggest 160px on the shortest side.
As for the longest side I suggest 720 and files not allowed over 200kb. This would also do better things for the server.
Joe
Joe, what site(s) constrain image submissions to 160 pixels on the shortest side? That is not much bigger than a thumbnail, so seems quite small to me. I'm not doubting your word.... just would like to visit the sites with such a limit.
www.dpchallenge.com
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 7:36:21 AM
|
|
|
|
Look at the rules for this challenge.
Link
Your submission must be:
*
no larger than 200 KB (204,800 bytes).
*
at least 160 pixels, and no more than 720 pixels on each side.
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 7:41:20 AM
|
|
|
|
I would suggest maximum 900 pixels for all the images except panoramas, which can be 1600 pixels long. From my experience that sizes are the best for the screen view, you could see all the details, but they wouldn't be big enough to stimulate downloading and using them illegally. 
|
|
|
Posted 8/12/2008 7:41:56 AM
|
|
|
| | |
