 Posted 5/6/2007 11:16:46 AM
|
|
|
|
For subscribers, I have modified the site to allow larger images (4000 pix instead of 640). This is a feature that has been requested multiple times so here is my reasoning:
1) When voting, all images are shown by default at a max of 640 in any direction
2) By limiting to subscribers, it helps to offset the system load
3) It is quite easy to reverse this change by hiding the full-sized version.
Please let me know if you encounter any problems with this recent change.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 5/6/2007 11:32:13 AM
|
|
|
|
| Wow !! that is a big change right?...does that mean we no longer have to resize in many instances (original size of pic?..do I have that right?... Cool! can't wait to see what impact that has... Thanks Eric!!!
I may not always be wRIGHTbut I am never wrong Profile - Top 24 - 
|
|
|
Posted 5/6/2007 11:40:14 AM
|
|
|
|
I think up to 8 MP you should be fine ... I know that 4,000 x 4,000 is 16 MP, but my 8MP camera captures 3,456 in the widest direction (2,304 in the narrow makes for about 7.9 MP).
If it needs to be moved further, that is no problem. Also, I have set the file size limit to 3 mega bytes. Which should be plenty for most .jpg images, but that value can be moved as well.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 5/6/2007 11:40:16 AM
|
|
|
|
Will you be able to view the LARGER image before casting a vote? 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 5/6/2007 11:45:23 AM
|
|
|
|
Yes. For images that are stored at more than 640 pix in the wide direction, a hyperlink will appear right under the image to take you to the larger version. I will create the same hyperlink for the image viewer page.
Edited to add: I will add that function to the image viewer page in the future as it needs some other modifications first.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 5/6/2007 12:17:13 PM
|
|
|
|
Thanks, Eric! That is a delightful and significant change. This sets your website way out in front in this regard. I think it's a great strategic move. It makes this site much more attractive for detailed landscape and macro shots. It changes the approach. No longer do I need to bypass a very good, detailed image because it doesn't present well in postage stamp size. The first image I uploaded was 1500x1200 pixels and 1918kb. It works!
I will note the 2:1 image proportion limitation remains.... for obvious reasons... but excludes panoramas greater than 2:1, for now.
It remains to be seen how to best use this wonderful new flexibility. Consideration, by the photographer, must be given to presentation. Some images can be scrolled through to examine intricate detail. That will appeal to some voters and will irritate others.
Just a really interesting and creative challenge to best use this! Thanks, again!
Edited to add: My first take on this is to size to 720 pixels on the vertical dimension, proportions constrained. That will pop the hyperlinked larger image to full screen for those with the common 720x1080 screens. For images that have unusually clear, sharp (in focus) and interesting detail, I'll probably impose on voters an image that is moderately larger than that.
|
|
|
Posted 5/6/2007 1:41:58 PM
|
|
|
|
wemor (5/6/2007)
Will you be able to view the LARGER image before casting a vote? WE
If YES, is this fair in relation to the contest for the non-subscriber? Will we now be comparing apples (almost unlimited image size for subscribers) and oranges (640x640 pixel max for non-subscriber)? While I believe that there should be some features and distinctions for subscribers, I always thought that it was important with regard to the photo competition that everyone competed on an equal basis. 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 5/6/2007 1:46:41 PM
|
|
|
|
That had previously been my sticking point. I feel it is most fair to compete on an absolutely equal field. However, after thinking about this further, I decided my perception holds no validation, and the only way to know is to try.
In reality, having a larger version of the image could harm at least as frequently as it could help. putting an image under a magnifying glass may reveal flaws that would have otherwise gone unnoticed.
So, I've decided to just give this new concept a try. If it does not work out, it is easy to hide the larger resolution versions from immediate view.
Eric
DailyAwards.com
|
|
|
Posted 5/7/2007 8:30:41 AM
|
|
|
| | |
