Posted by Derek Sedillo on October 30, 2008 at 9:53 PM
Hey guys,
I have wondered for the longest time why this limit has been set. It seems very limiting especially for a landscape/nature site.
It may be some kind of artificial limit based on the current layout of the cgi/perl based site. But most other modern photogrpahy forums allow this as well as just about every other forum on the web.
Please realize I am not trying to bag on this forum. The input here is second to none. But I am just trying to understand the logic behind all the imposed restrictions (frequency of images posted, size limits, etc...).
Maybe this would take a little extra work to modernize the site a bit. If the width gets wider than a column it basically could become scrollable to maintain width (similar to DPReview). Even better would be to enlarge the narrow columns, especially since wide screens are now the norm - 4/3 aspect ratio screens aren't even made any more.
I think being able to open another window to a larger image is a step in the right direction. But why not allow both, especially for externally hosted images?
Overall I guess I am wondering if there are any longer term plans to modernize the forum? There may even be open source forum engines available with many of the newer more flexible features built in.
Derek
Posted by Benjamin Glatt on October 30, 2008 at 11:28 PM
Having a consistent image size that works on both large screens and laptops is, in my opinion, the way to go--it creates an orderly environment that is ultimately beneficial for the viewer. Just look at fred miranda for an example of why we shouldn't allow larger image sizes.
I agree with Benjamin. A web site needs to be 'viewer-friendly' across multiple browsers and viewing devices. Images larger than 720px horizontally will result in horizontal scrolling. Such scrolling almost defeats the purpose of having a larger image: you can't see the image in its entirety.
In order to increase the max image size, more server storage space would be required, as well as increased bandwidth to handle the larger file dowloads to client browsers. Since NPN is supported by our membership dues, increases in server overhead costs might result in higher costs to us. NPN is a great deal as it is, but I think that, in these economic times, keeping costs down is a good strategy.
Personally, I think NPN is very nicely designed and functions very well. Cheers to Jim and Dave the programmer!
Just a note: It wasn't too long ago that the max image size was 600px, so the 720px size is quite a nice upgrade.
I read the comments a few times and I guess the key word(s) here are, "thread" & "forum", again if I'm reading and understanding this correctly. With that said, of course the gallaries are now accepting optional posts of 1200 long & 500 file size. I would think that is where we would want the largest images to be for review and not sure the threads or forums need any more than the 720 max. I think that is what we are driving at here correct? However, Preston and Benjamin, I also think Derek is mentioning linked items which are not stored on this server for review, hence require no space usage. I could see that point, but not sure about bandwidth needs then for off site retrievals?
"Even better would be to enlarge the narrow columns, especially since wide screens are now the norm - 4/3 aspect ratio screens aren't even made any more."
From a usability standpoint, websites should be designed based around older technology. While Cable/DSL may now be the norm, 56k connections still make up around 25% of internet users (IIRC). That 25% of people will not appreciate larger file sizes.
Similarly, while new monitors are able to handle larger resolutions, the norm remains down at 1280x768, making 720px a decent size for the typical internet user.
I don't know NPN's demographics, but I suspect it has a lower percentage of 56k/1280x768 visitors than many other websites. Perhaps NPN could get away with larger dimensions and file sizes being standard. I think the new 50kb/1200px option provides a nice evolutionary step that does a decent job of pleasing the high-res/DSL visitors while not forgetting about the low-res/56k visitors.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on October 31, 2008 at 1:57 AM
Paul,
Yes, I was referring to threads. I didn't know that the galleries were increased. That is a good thing! However for critique purposes in threads I find that 720px is still somewhat limiting.
With regards to bandwidth and overhead I don't think this is an issue when using another host. That is why the other forums do not have to worry about these restrictions (e.g. frequency, size, etc...). Maybe this could be an 'option' if using another host thus negating any concerns regarding resources.
I think I understand what some are saying about designing to the lowest common denominator. However even if a lot of ppl are still using1280x768 that is still 1280 wide. I think even a modest increase to lets say 800-900px would make a big difference. But is 'anyone' still constrained to 720px wide screens?
One thing good about FM and many other sites now is that the borders automatically size to your display. So you have much less wasted real estate. The software is a bit smarter now. Thus the old notion of coding to the lowest common denominator isn't as necessary anymore. And normally no scrolling is needed since the borders right size to the screen.
I think these things will come in time especially as more widescreens are utilized. But maybe it is too early for NPN to make the leap above the 720 threshold at this time since it did jump up from 600px. How long ago was that anyway? Eventually it will be safe to say that no one is constrained to 720px wide screens. Thus no user left behind.
Derek
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 31, 2008 at 6:10 AM
Derek, the NPN forums are designed and intended for discussion, not neccessarily the posting of photos. The only "forums" where photos are regularly posted are the regional forums, which were never originally intended for photo critique in the first place. But alas, how the regional forums started and how they have evolved is another story...
To more directly address your question, in the Image Critique galleries the standard width is 720 pixels. This seems to work well for most people and as already stated, permitting the viewing of the entire photo without the need to scroll on the majority of screens, including 1024 X 768 screen resolution still used by many on their laptops. We have just introduced the option to upload a second larger file that can be sized up to 1200 pixels.
Download time remains an issue with the 1200 files, even on "high speed" connections. I travel quite a bit with my job and find most hotel connections not much faster than dial-up, even though they are touted as high speed. On slower connections, waiting for the 1200 pixel/500kb photos to appear is a true test of patience. Even the 720/200 photos can become painfully slow.
Finally, there remains the issue of copyright protection. The larger the photo you place on screen, the greater the use/application of the photo for those not inclined to ask permission to use it.
For the intent of online critique, there really seems no reason to go any larger.
Posted by Roger Rouch on October 31, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I think the arrangement for having the option to post larger images, with 720 being the standard is just right. When Jim first announced the option for larger posts, there was a surpizing number of responses from folks like me who still use dial up. As it is now, I have to be somewhat selective of the photos I view due to download time.
Posted by Derek Sedillo on October 31, 2008 at 12:08 PM
Yes,
I realize the concerns many have regarding size and copyrights. Of course no one would be forced to use a larger size. Even now some probably post below 720 because of this.
The dialup speed and download issue was another interesting point made. Although I haven't used 56K for quite some time I realize there are some still using it such as Roger.
So if the majority of uses/members have no desire to display larger than 720px then I can understand not upgrading. But it always puzzled me as to why hence the Q.
Thanks again for the thoughtful responses as always.
Derek
Posted by Genny K. on October 31, 2008 at 10:42 PM
Just as a note, there are some of us who are using something even slower. My dial-up is 26k. It definitely has a limiting effect on viewing images. One of these days I'll time just how long it takes to download some of these images. Just image what it's like when someone (like my sister who has DSL) sends me a 2 MB file !!!
Where I live, there's no other option. Heck , we're lucky to have phones.....
Posted by Derek Sedillo on October 31, 2008 at 11:38 PM
Wohohoo... 26K I didn't think that was technically possible anymore.
But then again where you are living you probably have ample opportunity for great photography. So that probably more than makes up for it. Hey how about satellite high speed options? Are they not possible up there either?
You must wait v e r y patiently for images to load.
Posted by bud kuenzli on November 1, 2008 at 1:10 PM
26k dialup. ouch. I recently posted an aurora image to the AK forum and got a lot of people saying they had wished it was larger. I post my "original" to pbase and it jumps from 500pixel to 800 pixel so 500 was all I could do here. no big thing to me....just a fwiw comment.
Discussion
11 repliesI have wondered for the longest time why this limit has been set. It seems very limiting especially for a landscape/nature site.
It may be some kind of artificial limit based on the current layout of the cgi/perl based site. But most other modern photogrpahy forums allow this as well as just about every other forum on the web.
Please realize I am not trying to bag on this forum. The input here is second to none. But I am just trying to understand the logic behind all the imposed restrictions (frequency of images posted, size limits, etc...).
If someone hosts there own images there should not be any overhead to NPN. I think John Lehmkuhl's recent post is a good example of this in ESS http://www.naturephotographers.net/imagecritique/ic.cgi?a=vp&pr=108441&CGISESSID=42a46aaab3358096372413c19974b17d&u=15322
Maybe this would take a little extra work to modernize the site a bit. If the width gets wider than a column it basically could become scrollable to maintain width (similar to DPReview). Even better would be to enlarge the narrow columns, especially since wide screens are now the norm - 4/3 aspect ratio screens aren't even made any more.
I think being able to open another window to a larger image is a step in the right direction. But why not allow both, especially for externally hosted images?
Overall I guess I am wondering if there are any longer term plans to modernize the forum? There may even be open source forum engines available with many of the newer more flexible features built in.
Derek
In order to increase the max image size, more server storage space would be required, as well as increased bandwidth to handle the larger file dowloads to client browsers. Since NPN is supported by our membership dues, increases in server overhead costs might result in higher costs to us. NPN is a great deal as it is, but I think that, in these economic times, keeping costs down is a good strategy.
Personally, I think NPN is very nicely designed and functions very well. Cheers to Jim and Dave the programmer!
Just a note: It wasn't too long ago that the max image size was 600px, so the 720px size is quite a nice upgrade.
Regards,
-P
From a usability standpoint, websites should be designed based around older technology. While Cable/DSL may now be the norm, 56k connections still make up around 25% of internet users (IIRC). That 25% of people will not appreciate larger file sizes.
Similarly, while new monitors are able to handle larger resolutions, the norm remains down at 1280x768, making 720px a decent size for the typical internet user.
I don't know NPN's demographics, but I suspect it has a lower percentage of 56k/1280x768 visitors than many other websites. Perhaps NPN could get away with larger dimensions and file sizes being standard. I think the new 50kb/1200px option provides a nice evolutionary step that does a decent job of pleasing the high-res/DSL visitors while not forgetting about the low-res/56k visitors.
Yes, I was referring to threads. I didn't know that the galleries were increased. That is a good thing! However for critique purposes in threads I find that 720px is still somewhat limiting.
With regards to bandwidth and overhead I don't think this is an issue when using another host. That is why the other forums do not have to worry about these restrictions (e.g. frequency, size, etc...). Maybe this could be an 'option' if using another host thus negating any concerns regarding resources.
I think I understand what some are saying about designing to the lowest common denominator. However even if a lot of ppl are still using1280x768 that is still 1280 wide. I think even a modest increase to lets say 800-900px would make a big difference. But is 'anyone' still constrained to 720px wide screens?
One thing good about FM and many other sites now is that the borders automatically size to your display. So you have much less wasted real estate. The software is a bit smarter now. Thus the old notion of coding to the lowest common denominator isn't as necessary anymore. And normally no scrolling is needed since the borders right size to the screen.
I think these things will come in time especially as more widescreens are utilized. But maybe it is too early for NPN to make the leap above the 720 threshold at this time since it did jump up from 600px. How long ago was that anyway?
Derek
To more directly address your question, in the Image Critique galleries the standard width is 720 pixels. This seems to work well for most people and as already stated, permitting the viewing of the entire photo without the need to scroll on the majority of screens, including 1024 X 768 screen resolution still used by many on their laptops. We have just introduced the option to upload a second larger file that can be sized up to 1200 pixels.
Download time remains an issue with the 1200 files, even on "high speed" connections. I travel quite a bit with my job and find most hotel connections not much faster than dial-up, even though they are touted as high speed. On slower connections, waiting for the 1200 pixel/500kb photos to appear is a true test of patience. Even the 720/200 photos can become painfully slow.
Finally, there remains the issue of copyright protection. The larger the photo you place on screen, the greater the use/application of the photo for those not inclined to ask permission to use it.
For the intent of online critique, there really seems no reason to go any larger.
I realize the concerns many have regarding size and copyrights. Of course no one would be forced to use a larger size. Even now some probably post below 720 because of this.
The dialup speed and download issue was another interesting point made. Although I haven't used 56K for quite some time I realize there are some still using it such as Roger.
So if the majority of uses/members have no desire to display larger than 720px then I can understand not upgrading. But it always puzzled me as to why hence the Q.
Thanks again for the thoughtful responses as always.
Derek
Where I live, there's no other option. Heck , we're lucky to have phones.....
But then again where you are living you probably have ample opportunity for great photography. So that probably more than makes up for it. Hey how about satellite high speed options? Are they not possible up there either?
You must wait v e r y patiently for images to load.