Should this site accept larger images?

Isn't 720 pixels on the longest side too small? 800 would be a bit better, and 1000 would be better yet.

These days most people have larger monitors, and even people with dialup access could still easily view larger images than 720p as long as the file size is kept within reason.

What do you all think?

720 is fine with me.
Georg

I like the larger images too but I would rather not have visitors be able to save my image onto their computer. 720 pixels is nice to view but not nice when it's enlarged.

720 is fine with me. Not everyone has a large monitor and having to scroll up and down while viewing vertical images is not an ideal situation.

I'm also happy with the way it is now.

I agree with the above and add the consideration of file size. They're already too large for casual viewing on the 24k dialup connection I'm saddled with. I recognize that folks with dialups are a shrinking minority these days, but if you want participation of many rural residents, small is good when it comes to files. And no, even if I had the fastest of fast connections, you wouldn't get me to put larger photos on the web.

720 seems to be a good compromise. Remember, you can always link to another site that has your image posted at a larger size. Several of us do that from time to time for panos, etc.

The 720px size works nicely. Anything bigger will be a hindrance for dialup users, and most of us (I think) prefer to see the entire image without having to scroll.

If something could be changed it would be file size. For those who upload images to the NPN server and to Photo Portfolios.net, 200 KB is pretty small, especially for detailed images. The jpeg compression to reach 200KB is a killer.

I don't know what would be a good maximum size, but 250 or 300 KB seems reasonable.

Just my 0.02.

-PB

Totally agree with Mr. Birdwell.

would love to see the file size increased

I vote leaving it at 720.

720 pixels with a little bump up in file size.

720 pixels is plenty big IMO. A little increase in the max file size would be nice though.

720 is also fine with me. File size hasn't been a problem. I create my proofs with breezebrowzer and they come out well under the limit.

Looks like you're outnumbered Kris. I too am happy with the current size. Many folks provide links to larger versions, which works too. I'm also concerned about larger, higher quality images getting lifted and used elsewhere, illegally. There are numerous examples of this happening right here - and of course it's not just an NPN issue.

Lon

I also agree with the 720 size. Its enough detail to understand the photo in most situations, but not big enough for people to do much with stolen images.

Mel-

720 is fine with me, I rarely post that large any how as I would have to compress many images substantially to get under the 200 kb limit and that can wipe out many details.

Like others have stated, I don't want my images lifted and used elsewhere.

We have some site/forum software upgrades slated for mid 2008 and an increase in file size (not pixel count) could certainly be done. I will add it to the list.

What most of you don't understand is that you could still submit photos with 720 pixels on the longest side (or even smaller), even if the site would "accept larger images". I never said you would HAVE TO submit larger photos. I'm talking about maximum size, not required size. And if any of you think that your photos are less likely to be stolen just because they're a little smaller, think again. As someone stated above, some of the photos posted on this site have been appropriated by unscrupulous people.

I can't see any good reason why at least 800p can't be acceptable. If anything, it's the file size that could be an impediment to people with dialup. And yes, I have dialup.

This is the only site I have submitted photos to that has such a small size limit on photos, and that's the main reason I submit so few. I don't like the fact that I have to make a special size just for this site. Being able to link to a larger photo doesn't matter. Most people don't like having to click a link and going to another site just to see a larger image.

Anyone interested enough in photography to view or submit photos to a site like this one is VERY likely to have at least a 17" monitor and many would have a much larger one. Most people also have the resolution set high on their monitors, which makes images smaller on the screen.

Anyway, 800 pixels on the long side would be nice for a maximum size.

I dont post over 680 on the long side, but I agree with Preston...200k can be a killer to an image with tons of fine detail like forests n stuff. I welcome Jim's planned upgrades with open arms.

I like the idea of adding to total file size, but don't want to see image size increased. I'm one of those drips with a 17-inch monitor, and viewing some of those 1,000 pixel images on other Web sites forces me to scroll side to side or up and down. Imagine if I was in an art gallery and had to walk back and forth to take in an image, or had to squat down and then stand on tiptoes for a vertical image. I can see doing that for a certain effect, but to force a portion of online viewers into that rigamarole doesn't make sense.

Not to mention, with a horizontal that large, it means I have to scroll side to side just to see all the words in the posts accompanying the image and repying to it. How infuriating.

In the end, I just don't bother looking at images anymore that force me into mouse gymnastics. So, Kris, your suggestion may get 9.8 scores from some other users, but this Russian judge is giving it a 5.8. (I'll slink out of the gym now.)

Well I have been muddling along at the 640 pixel limit as per the guidelines and have found that it is a hit or miss proposition on the 200 KB file size. A bump up to 250 KB would be a huge help for me.

I heard that the Devil is in the details.

Pete D.

Changing the maximum allowed image upload file size from 200kb is a worthwhile idea. Of course the benefit of uploading images to the site's sever is likely a primary feature for many members. However even if I was a member, I would not use that limit because images even at 720 pixel dimensions take too much of a aesthetic hit. The average 720 pixel images I link from my own site are over twice that file size. Although I wish everyone had 21 inch and larger monitors like I do such isn't the web status quo yet. The 720 pixel maximum dimension is thus a reasonable size that I'll expand on below for those that wish to suffer through the technical numbers. ...David

Most personal computer monitor RGB phosphor pitches are in the 85 to 105 pixel per inch range. Thus I tend to resize all my web content to 96 pixels per inch. And we often set our operating system window display settings to something that takes advantage of most of that pitch. Thus with increasing monitor sizes XVGA 1024x768, 1280x1024, and 1600x1200 are more common today yesterday's more popular VGA 640x480 or SVGA that had been so for many years. Monitors are specified in the diagonal screen dimension. For standard 4:3 aspect monitors, the horizontal screen dimension equals 80% of the diagonal and the height 60%. However only roughly 90% of those lengths are viewable between monitor housings. That reduces numbers to about 72% and 54% respectively. So for a 17 inch diagonal monitor, the usable screen might be about 12.2x9.2 inches or 1175x880 phosphor dots. However operating systems always display within a window that contains borders on all sides. So that actual usable space is about 150 pixels less and then their may be additional perimeter space used due to the specific browser application. Thus 720 pixels is a reasonable dimensional limit if we consider 17 inch monitors to still be in common use as the case is.

In the case of my own web site, I size my own gallery images to a maximum of about 900 pixels because they have much more impact than those of 720 pixels. It's a square factor of course so there are 50% more pixels. I expect most people that are well off enough to buy my large prints are also likely to have larger sized monitors. And as I've argued elsewhere on the web, I really am not worried about someone copying my images as a 900 pixel image only has enough image to make a crude 5 inch or less wide print. Someone makes a screen saver...small peanuts. Maybe some poor craft fair artist could plop that down on a coffee mug haha. Anyone with more devious intention can read my copyright notice. The idea of making larger images optional is not wise either as the relative aesthetic of smaller 720 pixels images would suffer unfairly in comparison.

Great, now I feel like a geezer I remember the days when all we got was 600 pixels and a 120 kb file size limit (wasn't it 90 at the start?).

I have to agree that for certain images, the 200 kb limit can be a killer with compression. But I am still on dialup and the thought of downloading a 300kb file is enough to make my modem let out little beeps of panic. One of these days, I'll make the conversion, but not in the near future. I'd vote for leaving things as they are.

> ... the thought of downloading a 300kb file is enough to make my modem let out little beeps of panic.

And here I was thinking those were beeps of joy.

I don't want anything any bigger, I'm on dial-up, and some of these images are incredibly slow to download as it is.
Bigger file sizes would really slow things down for those on dial-up. If bigger file sizes are allowed, I would like to see a number with the thumbnail showing the file size, because, honestly, I would avoid the bigger file sizes. People who are not on dial-up just have no idea how long it takes just to LOOK at a dozen images on here, much less comment on them. Let people put bigger images on their Portfolio page, but keep it reasonable here on the critiques. This part is for critiquing and learning, not so much for showing off.....
Besides, if you put bigger and better images on here, doesn't that make it more tantalizing for people to "borrow" them?

I am thinking that adding a members-only option to upload a separate "hi-res" file may be a cool idea. On the photo upload screen, you would have a separate browse/upload field to post a photo up to 600kb, no dimension restriction. The larger photo would be displayed via a "hi res" link and open in a separate window. It would also be optional for the viewer to open, thus saving those on slower connections the grief of waiting longer.

If we were to do that, I would keep the current size limits for the "main photo" as-is.

Thoughts?

As has been stated by someone above, people can already post a link to a larger version of their photo, so having a mamber only hi-res page seems nonsensical to me.

I must say I'm amazed at how many of you are suggesting that larger file sizes be accepted but not larger image sizes. For people with dialup it's the file size that causes problems. I know, because I have dialup. File size and image size do not necessarily go together. It depends on how the image is saved (compression applied).

I'm only suggesting a maximum size of 800 pixels on the longest side. A thousand is apparently way out of the question based upon the responses here.

As far as protecting photos from being stolen by unscrupulous people, this site could allow users to apply a transparent gif file on top of their original photo, like flickr does (and some other sites). That may not be completely tamper proof, but it's a lot better than no protection at all. Protective functions like that would be easy for this site to provide.

Kris, although that is narrow enough to easily be viewed horizontally with a 17 inch monitor, if you look at my above numbers, it may result in possible marginal incomplete images for vertical orientation pics. Also I don't think an increase to 800 pixels that is a 23% increase in pixels, is near enough an increase for the obvious resulting hassle.

Jim that's a good idea and I would agree it would be an attractive feature increasing the tendency of non-members like me to join. Of course the html structure: target="_blank" is an appropriate operation that opens up a new window instead of replacing the current one. It would be nice to be able to externally link to somewhat larger images than the 600kb limit as that is rather marginal with 900 pixel width images. Another function that could serve is not to simply duplicate the default 720 pixel images but rather compliment it by showing more detailed crops of interesting areas of an image that the downsizing otherwise eliminates. That is something I do in my own site's gallery for each image. Gives the viewer a better understanding how much detail the actual image has and brings into clarity interesting feature like otherwise indistinct animals.

Genny mentions adding the file size beside the thumbnail to warn those perusing the image index how large file sizes are. No doubt not a few dial-up people have learned to avoid opening up my linked images haha. It would be easy to append that information to the title by each user even today with some cooperation by members. Something I am willing to do. Thus my current offering's title might look like:

Pacific Dogwood Ravine - 550kb

...David

Call me a curmudgeon, but I'm not very receptive to a non-member scolding the site administrators about file sizes or much of anything else. I would like to see a larger file size and as a longtime member who chooses to use the site hosting service I would really like a members only high res upload capability. If you don't like the guidelines, post somewhere else. Membership does and should have some privilege and since almost every member who has responded is generally happy I see no compelling reason to change. >=))>

Bill....

After reading some of the responses in this thread, now I know why I rarely post an image here anymore.

Viewing photos on the Internet involves many compromises, including differing monitor resolutions, connection speeds, type of monitors, monitor profiling/color settings, etc., all of which effects the quality of presentation. In regards to photo size, if everyone used hi-res monitors and were on cable modems at all times and in all places, going with larger photos/file sizes would make sense. Since that is not the case, the best we can do is to provide a format that is useable for the largest cross section of users.

BTW, we currently consume about 150 gigs of bandwidth on this site every month, bandwidth that paid membership helps flip the bill for.

(This message was posted using a laptop with a 1024 X 768 monitor on a rather slow hotel Internet connection.)

Bill, since I'm registered on this site, the rules do allow me to post comments here. Your interpretation that I'm "scolding" the administrators is ridiculous and arrogant. "Members" already have priveleges, and those are determined by the site administrators.

A members only hi-res page goes against virtually all the responders that don't want this site to accept larger image sizes. The main arguments against larger image sizes are: potentially having to scroll to see the entire image, download time on dialup, and image theft. A hi-res page (especially if the images were very large) would hardly help in those situations. And if you see no reason to change, why are you suggesting a members only hi-res page?

I already do post images somewhere else.

If no one ever speaks up, nothing ever improves, whether it be on this site or anywhere else. I have been observing and sometimes posting on this site for quite awhile. In my opinion, this site needs some updates/upgrades. Compared to many other sites, the forums and galleries here are slow to nearly stagnant. In some cases the moderators are often the only ones posting messages or images. I can not come here for a month and yet very little new content has been added.

I think there are several reasons for that and just one of them is image size. I would very much like to see this site succeed in every way. To do so, I think the site needs to seriously consider adapting/improving/upgrading to keep up with technology and to keep the interest of its' users. The same old same old gets boring and stale.

In this particular case, I'm merely suggesting that this site accept images that are 800 pixels on the longest side. It appears that this is asking too much, so I guess I'll just have to "post somewhere else", as you said.





Reply posted by Bill Fach on 11/09/07 at 4:29 pm EST

Call me a curmudgeon, but I'm not very receptive to a non-member scolding the site administrators about file sizes or much of anything else. I would like to see a larger file size and as a longtime member who chooses to use the site hosting service I would really like a members only high res upload capability. If you don't like the guidelines, post somewhere else. Membership does and should have some privilege and since almost every member who has responded is generally happy I see no compelling reason to change. >=))>

Kris,

At the current time, 39 new images have been posted today in various galleries. 67 images were posted yesterday in various galleries. 68 images were posted the day before in various galleries.

I would hardly call that slow or stagnant.

The majority of the images posted are from members, not moderators.

This isn't the other sites you mentioned, it is the one and only Nature Photographers On Line Magazine, it is already a success, and I enjoy it as is.

This site gains new members all the time, and with all the marvelous images posted every day, I could never think of it as boring or stale.

With due respect to you, and this site, those are not impressive numbers. Flickr.com had 2,264 photos uploaded in the last minute.

Yes, flickr does accept almost any kind of photo, but I also see a lot of off topic photos here too, and many of the photos uploaded to flickr are nature photos.

There are lots of sites devoted to purely nature photography.

With all due respect, this isn't Flickr.

As a long-time member of NPN, I have watched, and I hope, helped this site to grow. Pure numbers of images and/or comments posted are not necessarily an indicator of success, or failure.

NPN is a wonderful community of like-minded individuals who share not only their work, but their lives. I have met folks as a direct result of interaction with NPN whom I count among my very best friends. That alone is priceless, and I am quite certain that many others here feel similarly.

Regardless of image size, or file size, or the ability of an individual photographer we strive to promote learning, creativity, technical ability, and above all a genuine sense of more than casual familiarity among members and non-members alike.

So, I invite you to particpate, post your images and your comments, and get to know us. We're a pretty good bunch, and we all take pride in this wonderful site and the community we have created.

Kind Regards,

-PB

720/200 is fine with me. I like the way the images appear om my monitors and if they are stolen the file size is small enough to render them almost useless for any commercial purpose.

720 px and 200 kb is fine with me as well.

And! this site is most definitely not flickr and if it ever did turn into such a site I might not be here. Who can keep up with 2000+ images in a minute???? I have a hard time just keeping up with the ESS gallery let alone the others.

This site is more than just a photo upload site, its an online community, and like Preston I too have met many fine people/photographers since I have been here.

I like it the way it is. Small incremental improvements over time are appreciated though, at the pace that Jim and his staff can do sanely.

Jim, thanks for all the hard work.

Preston summed it up well. In so many ways, NPN is far more about the people than the website itself. IMO, photos like this one really tells the story well.

That said Kris, I do appreciate your comments and suggestions! In fact, I am always looking for suggestions on how to improve the NPN website to offer for consideration to the membership. But keep in mind that NPN is not a muliti-billion dollar corporation like Yahoo! (who owns FlickR), and that just about all of us here (including me) have regular 9-to-5 jobs to pay the bills. So in many ways, there is no way we could ever compete with a site like FlickR even if we wanted to.

We are planning some modest upgrades/updates for next year. Most of the task is going to involve streamlining the forum/gallery software for more efficient server use. At the same time, we'll be adding some new features that have been requested by our members. As the time draws near, I will post a thread with a list of the upgrades we are planning and ask for feedback and other suggestions.

In the mean time, please feel free to join us "as we are" and participate as you see fit. If you wish to communicate with me directly, you can use my email icon below. Thanks again for your suggestions and participation in the Nature Photographers Network!

Kris, it shouldn't bother anyone that you offer advice on how this site can get better. Jim will in the end decide which pieces of advice fit in with his vision for NPN and discard the rest. That's what one does with advice -- take some, leave some.

Preston said it perfectly. This is one of my two homes on the Internet. I was thrilled to find it a year and a half ago. I'm a member here because it's comfortable and rewarding to be a part of this family. While not all here are professional photographers, all have a true desire to offer professional quality work that reflects their own style, and the level of discourse on this site is far higher than on other, more "popular" sites with tens of thousands of people signed up. Paid memberships help support this fine NPN community. If this became a lot more like other sites, I would not come here.

As a dial up member I hope the permitted file size doesn't grow beyond 200KB. 720pix is fine with me, although I have no trouble getting good image quality at 800pix and 150KB with most of the bird photos I take, so I'd have no issue with increasing the dimension limit to 800 (without bumping the file size above 200KB).

I have already stopped viewing the excessively large files of certain posters in the avian gallery who are oblivious to download times and routinely post images in the 400-500KB range; I hope I don't have to stop viewing and commenting on more photographer's work here in the future.

How is posting images that large even allowed? The couple times I've tried to post images of more than 200 Kb (by accident) the site wouldn't accept them.

I think the larger files are actually links to larger files hosted elsewhere Steve.

Those links are imaterial to me. I don't let them open all the way, so sorry to all that use them. Whether or not you value my reviews, you aren't going to get them. As it is, due to my dialup connection it usually takes two minutes or longer to open a single 200 k image. Much as I love NPN, I simpy can't give it the time required to review even a handful of 200k images, much less wait 5 minutes and longer to puruse a single link to a larger file.

I hope we don't lose track of Genny's suggestion to register file size along with the thumbnails, or even indicate when a post is a link to another site rather than an image hosted at NPN. It would probably give me the opportunity and incentive to go back to reviewing photos.

But if each time I click on a thumbnail it's a blind shot whether I'm going to wait two minutes or ten minutes for the image to load, I'm less and less likely to poke any image. Sorry to "short" anyone who found value in my reviews, but larger file sizes will only make worse a situation I already find frustrating.

I can live with the 720 pixel limit and the 200k file size. I like Jim's idea for an optional hires image.

What I'd like to see is a healthy bump in the pixel dimensions of the image gallery thumbnails. I think the small size of the thumbnails favors simple compositions with bold colors. More complex images often make uninteresting thumbnails. I wonder if this affects the number of views and comments.

Mark,

I truly like the idea of a larger thumbnail. ThaT way I would save money buying flatpicks to play my guitar.

Seriously, larger image thumbnails would be a boon for the reasons you give. Although such an action would result in fewer images on each page, the larger thumbnails would help tremendously, I believe. We would have to keep in mind that dial-up users may balk if page load times are too great, so a reasonable compromise seems in order, here.

-PB

Well as a long time member here I don't use the image galleries just about at all. The 720px size to me is to small. Every other site I visit allow 800 and I'm to lazy to have to resize images just for NPN so I hardly post anymore. But then I use a 24inch iMac with 1920x1200 resolution and I'm on broadband so image size means nothing to me.

I would think a 800 limit wouldn't be that bad and as stated YOU don't have to post at the limit...

How is posting images that large even allowed?

- Steve

Yes, as Hank states these are images hosted elsewhere (pbase, flickr, personal web site, etc.). Like Hank, I can't squander the time waiting for these monster files to download, so I just close that window and move on to another. I can view 2 or 3 reasonably sized images in that same amount of time. And having the person's name with the thumbnail means I can skip the image completely now.

I think the small size of the thumbnails favors simple compositions with bold colors. More complex images often make uninteresting thumbnails. I wonder if this affects the number of views and comments.

- Mark

My thoughts as well. A bright red Cardinal on a stick against a bright blue background will always get more views than a subtle Lincoln's Sparrow in a wonderful brown and tan natural setting.