 Posted 7/16/2008 5:52:58 PM
|
|
|
|
| There are two things that are making me weepy. (1) A continued influx of photos that have noise and OOF issues, most all probably due to submitting shots larger than 640X on the long side. (2) And high scores given to these submissions. I know, I know, we talked about this before, but maybe you don't know how bad it is, or how much it skews the contest, and hurts the photographer. For instance. There is one member, on whose photos I vote pretty frequently, who nearly always has the problems mentioned above. In fact, some time ago, I sent her a private message explaining the scores she was receiving from me, and referred her to several threads, and the article written by Richard. Just minutes ago, I unknowingly scored a photo of hers a 5, due to the reasons mentioned above. After I voted, I saw that everyone else was giving her a score of 7.3+. This has happened numerous times with this photographer. She is skilled. She has a substantial weight. She has some nice photos. The other voters, though, are giving her an inflated score. What must she think of me, receiving significant "dings" due to the same old issues? The major problems are not with me or her. In my opinion, there are two things that are really at fault here. (1) A failure of the Administration to continually inform and educate each and every member about the sizing of their photos, and (2) the failure of the many (?) of our members to take a careful, but fair, look at every photo. At full size. I'm going out on a limb here, and I'm taking a saw with me. Laziness, speed-voting, a lack of honest discernment, and inflated scores, all do injury to the photographer, and a disservice to our community in general. It's enough to make a grown man cry.
Go when you can, go where you can, shoot what you can
|
|
|
Posted 7/16/2008 6:36:21 PM
|
|
|
|
| I understand where you are coming from. From my experience, I would say the 70 to 80% of the images that are posted above the 640 pixel voting window display do not benefit (presentation wise) from their extra size. I no longer post any image larger than 640x640. I personally feel that all images should be voted on at the 640 pixel limit (exception of pano). . Still, to me it is the responsibility of the submitting photographer to present the best view of their image possible for voting. If someone chooses to take the risk and post a larger image which turns out not to present well, it is the voters responsibility to rate it accordingly. WE
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images Nikon D70 - Nikon N90 - Nikonus III - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 7/16/2008 7:16:30 PM
|
|
|
|
Agreed! Here's the problem. Most images are not well suited for sizes above 640 pixels on the longest dimension. That is absolutely true for images which have been zoomed and cropped.... these should not be sized up to a "big" size. I've seen a lot of images which look pretty good at the voting window size and look terrible at the 100% pixel size. Not all, but most. In fact, it's never a good idea to present an image at 100% pixel view. And, as a general rule.... never upsize an image beyond the pixels you have available in the original image. The post-processing application will interpolate pixels (add in things you don't want) when this happens. That means a loss of detail, sharpness, color and contrast.
There are some images which display okay at a large size. Panoramas and complex landscapes probably need to be shown bigger than 640 pixels, but they are the exceptions, not the rule. Even for those, you can downsize effectively, but never upsize!
When uploading an image larger than 640 pixels to the contest, one submits that image to processing for the voting window display by the site's image resizer. It might compress the image quality quite a lot, relative to the full size image. Eric has assured us the quality in the voting window is top notch. The quality in the view window, for the general membership, is not that high. The point is.... no one is guaranteed that a voter will take the time and effort to review the full size image. If you want the voters to see the full quality image, the only way to do that is to submit a 640 pixel image, which will be untouched by the image resizer.
I have put this message out before, but not everyone reads the forums.
 My Top 24
|
|
|
Posted 7/16/2008 9:28:20 PM
|
|
|
|
If an image is good , but there are image quality issues . What is an average mark off and how much initial judgment is placed on the score . In the photojournalism arena this seems to be a tough situation . I have had images I really thought were full of emotion and there were some quality issues . This seems to be about the only time I let there be less influence on my vote because of the difficulty of any real controlled situation for the most part . . Bobby
|
|
|
Posted 7/16/2008 9:35:52 PM
|
|
|
|
Richard, that's exactly why Admin has to get involved. If we don't get a site-wide email, repeated periodically, this problem is going to haunt us for years. It will create a lot of animus, as well. Yes, ultimately it is the photographer's personal responsibility, but if the situation goes unchanged, then our community silence will contribute to the perpetuation of a thorny problem. I'm naive enough to want everyone to have a good experience here at DA. I recommend it to everyone who is interested. I even want the "Knotheads" to have a good time, as long as it is not at the expense of other people.
Go when you can, go where you can, shoot what you can
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2008 5:01:33 AM
|
|
|
|
Yup I totally agree again..Lately I have been uploading larger sizes...the first thing I do is view it for quality issues...when I used to upload larger sizes the quality was terrible..now,,,I think I have improved with my photography which is a good thing...I feel the quality is great at full size most of the time...I often wonder how many times versus votes are my images being viewed at full size because I have the opposite problem...it seems that many of my full size images which I feel are very good quality wise, look worse at the 640 size...I should probably keep everything at the small size but geesh, I enjoy the larger when quality is good.
I just think for many images, a larger size gives a nice little bang for the buck..
I do agree something should be done even if it is to restrict the size again if no one is viewing and voting on the uploaded larger size ,,,8 times out of ten the quality is not as good but the full size version is what should be rated and win, lose or draw.
jmo
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile -  Top 24 - 
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2008 1:43:42 PM
|
|
|
|
| I'm still very new here and have unfortunately posted some obvious problems inherent on the site. In response to the size of the uploads, DA suggests not to exceed 2000 X 2000, or roughly 800kb, or am I mistaken? I do run across some photos that are at full resolution and I'm amazed that they can even do that. THERE ARE BIGGER ISSUES HERE! I love the explanation about collusion, what a joke, it's alive and well here. The bigger joke are the individuals and groups of buddies who gang up and give 5's out to photos that are averaging in the 7's and 8's. I'm not even talking about mine, I'm as concerned for the excellent photographers that I vote for and yes, I know the difference between a 5 and an 8. I've reported these idiots, requested comments from them, sent them private messages (and not very flattering ones at that) and have never gotten message one from any admin. member. This is such a great site, or could be, if people would just stop all the game playing. If you (in general) have a problem with a voter regarding a score, or other issue... splain yourself. And you cowards that vote masked (not all, but you know who you are) in order to freely kill averages, you really need a good can of whoop ***. FYI, I recently changed my voting profile to masked to avoid the snipers, but evidently that tool doesn't work for me. Anyway, I know this won't do a bit of good one way or another, but at least I got it off my chest. Have a nice day...
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2008 2:38:39 PM
|
|
|
|
4fun (7/19/2008)
I'm still very new here and have unfortunately posted some obvious problems inheirent on the site. In response to the size of the uploads, DA requires 2000 X 2000, or roughly 800kb, or am I mistaken?. There is NO image size requirement. DA allows site subscribers a MAXIMUM image size of 2000x2000 pixels and a maximum file size of 1MB. Images may be posted much smaller and most entrants would be wise to do so. . The voting window displays images at a maximum of 640x640 pixels. This size is the "first (and often the only) impression" an image makes on the voter. By posting images larger than 640 pixels, the photographer relinquishes one element of their image's display. . Images that are posted beyond the initial display size of 640 pixels are downsized for their first impression in the voting window. There is debate about the quality the image downsize delivers, but I have seen enough examples of degradation that I prefer to post images at the 640 pixel voter screen display size. WE
_________________________
Profile - Top 24 - All Images Nikon D70 - Nikon N90 - Nikonus III - Nikkor 20mm - Nikkor 50mm - Nikkor 24-120mm - Nikkor 28-70mm - Nikkor 85mm - Nikkor 70-300mm - Sigma 400mm
|
|
|
Posted 7/19/2008 2:51:08 PM
|
|
|
| | |
