800 pixels ...

trican

Anyone else think the 800 pixels restriction in the random photo thread is overkill?

Whats the reason for it?

I propose it should be increased marginally - and reduce the hassle for flickr users (I don't want to use pix.ie)

thoughts/opinions/general rants welcome?!

daycent

The 800 pixel thing is probably still fairly relevant due to the popularity of netbooks etc.

The Flickr sizes are annoying though. I thought 640/800 would be a better option than 500px for medium sizes, aren't those typical internet sizes?

trican

I'm not sure about the netbook thingy being a reasonable excuse - if that logic was applied with the emergence of smart phone (iphones, android based, etc) the max size would be considerably smaller than 800 pixels.

Whats the break down on the screen resolutions of the photography forum users?

swingking

why don't people just upload an 800*600 version to Flickr and use that. I actually don't see the point of uploading a full res file to flickr

AnimalRights

My notebook deserves better.

hbr

trican wrote: »

Whats the break down on the screen resolutions of the photography forum users?

Mine is 1280x1024. I think the 800 pixel limit is unreasonably small.
I can see why the administrators wouldn't want huge files stored
on boards.ie because of the increased storage and bandwidth costs,
but I don't see why there should be such a small limit on images that
are stores elsewhere on sites like pix.ie and flickr.

It would be more reasonable to have a maximum file upload
size.

Diabhal_Glas

swingking wrote: »

why don't people just upload an 800*600 version to Flickr and use that. I actually don't see the point of uploading a full res file to flickr

I upload High-Res to Flickr as a backup

AnimalRights

Diabhal_Glas wrote: »

I upload High-Res to Flickr as a backup

also I'd imagine most people are too lazy to resize, I use my pixie for back up too btw.

The Snipe

Its a little thing called common courtesy, As larger images are complete bandwidth whores for people with slower internet connections, or Eircom.

Chorcai

AnimalRights wrote: »

My notebook deserves better.

We also have people who quote images, not so much around here but elsewhere. :D:D

trican

@AnimalRights, @Chorcai, @XiledSniper: I'm not suggesting completely removing the size limitation, but rather to marginally increase it. And the impact of which would be minimal on download speeds. If it was about supporting the widest array of internet clients and fastest download speeds why not use ASCII text images?!

Morrisseeee

I scroooooooooled for half an hour but still couldn't find the 'thanks' icon !

PopeBuckfastXVI

As I said before,

I browse in a window at work, I can't 'fullscreen' anything here, and I like to be able to see a photo in it's entirety, not by scrolling around and piecing it back together in my head.

If 500px is an option, why don't you post at 500px? I always do and I don't think my 'thanks' count has suffered from it, on the contrary I wouldn't bother 'thanking' a picture bigger than 800px because I can't see it all.

If you have to say your photo should be viewed 'larger' to appreciate it, then it's probably not that good of a photo, you need to do some cropping.

A good photo is a good photo, large or small.

Promac

I think 800 pixels is fine. Especially when you consider how long takes to load a whole page of images, even on a fast connection. I have 30mb down-speed and it still takes a while to get the whole page. I pity anyone still on 1 or 2 mb.

NakedDex

trican wrote: »

I'm not sure about the netbook thingy being a reasonable excuse - if that logic was applied with the emergence of smart phone (iphones, android based, etc) the max size would be considerably smaller than 800 pixels.

Actually I can view 800px images rather nicely on an iPhone. In fact, apart from the ridiculous loading time, AR's image fitted the screen rather nicely. My netbook, however, hates anything beyond 800px on any website, and that's where I do a significant amount of my boards use these days (though that may change when my iPad arrives).
I'm not sure 800px is restrictive really. Another site I frequent has a 400px limit due to the format of the forum graphic layout. What most people do there is post the 400px size with the full size link embedded in the image or written underneath it. It's not ideal, but it works and people are content enough to use it.
I can see 800px being restrictive for panoramas, so maybe there could be exceptions or a seperate thread granted there, but otherwise I'd like to keep my bandwidth somewhat uncongested. Vodafone (home) broadband struggles with a full page in the Random Picture thread as it is. I'd probably have less concern if I had a UPC line, but my average speed is about 400-600kb/s. Try loading a 15Mb full res image at that speed...

Thecageyone

That dog pic looks way better in smaller size, sorry.

dave66

trican wrote: »

Anyone else think the 800 pixels restriction in the random photo thread is overkill?

Whats the reason for it?

I propose it should be increased marginally - and reduce the hassle for flickr users (I don't want to use pix.ie)

thoughts/opinions/general rants welcome?!

I'm a flickr user and to be honest don't find it to me much hassle, I have posted a few shots to the random and assignment threads. I find that in flickr I select view all sizes, then select medium size, then right click, copy the image location and then use that to post the image, you can always make the photo a link to the hi-res version (or your photostream) so people can view the full size if the wish.

jpb1974

I prefer to post at 1024px for landscape orientated images.

I post here at 500px... smaller than a postcard... loads of lost detail... sometimes it's the case that a photo has to be seen large(r) to be better appreciated.

But if 800px is the happy medium then so be it.

sasar

I think 800 pixels is more than enough. You can always link it to the original if you wish.

AnimalRights

Thecageyone wrote: »

That dog pic looks way better in smaller size, sorry.

You're missing the Ptake/point young man.