I know this has been brought up before, but I think it would really enhance the experience here on NPN if the thumbnails were about twice as big. This is one area where I think other sites have an advantage, and I'd like to see it here as well. I don't know how hard this would be to implement though, the logistics may be too difficult. I think this is the very best nature photography forum out there, this is just one way to improve it even further IMO. Anyway, just thought I would throw that out there.
I totally agree with Zack on this idea, I would love to see larger thumbnails on portfolios and postings for image critiques. I agree that it would be great improvement to an overall excellent site.
Also, I haven't posted many images, but with the few I did, I noticed something: You can get a decent size shot to upload with good quality with a filesize between 250KB-300KB. Getting it down to 200KB actually involves destroying image quality. Is there anyway filesize limits for uploads can be increased to at least 300KB-400KB? That size image is NOTHING in today's world of gigabytes in your shirt pocket. And NPN has the best images I've seen concentrated in one public site, but the number of images is next door to nothing when you compare against Flickr and Webshots and other monster image websites. Even if the Forums are limited to 200KB, galleries on Photoportpholios.net having to squish to 200K (I have fonts bigger than that) is quite a task.
Just a thought! Hope I'm not ruffling feathers somewhere...
Getting it down to 200KB actually involves destroying image quality.
Basically I agree that 200KB is pretty small - especially given the cost of storage these days. But I'll have to really disagree with this unless you think that all of the images on this site have had their quality destroyed. Perhaps something like "Save for Web" or something else that really works to minimize file size (stripping EXIF, etc.) might help? Occasionally I've had to go pretty low in compression for highly detailed images (or noisy images - which is the same thing for file size purposes); But the main issue there is the pixel dimensions being too small for the amount of detail you want to show, not really the file size.
In any case, I think the reason the 200 KB limit is maintained is because of a fair number of members in far flung places still on dial-up. And I think the larger image posts really help solve the problem for everyone.
I rarely have a hard time getting under the Kb limits for either the 720 pixel or 1200 pixel images. I use the Save for Web option in Photoshop and am usually at 90 percent quality level or better with a jpeg.
An occasional exception is when I crop an image square, which adds quite a bit to the file size compared with a standard horizontal or vertical crop with 720 pixels on the long side. And once in awhile when I have an image with lots and lots of different colors and busy edges (quite a rare combo with the type of work I do), I've got to knock it down below 90 percent quality.
I will say that on occasion I've opted not to post an image that was square and needed to be reduced to 75 percent or lower image quality.
Bumping up the thumbnail size is a desirable move, IMO.
OK, I'll work on mocking-up a page to see how it looks. Once I have the HTML template made, I'll have Dave the Programmer modify the software. I'll work on the template this weekend...
But I'll have to really disagree with this unless you think that all of the images on this site have had their quality destroyed.
No, you're right David, the images on here have been gorgeous... I didn't word that correctly. The problem is how small they have to get. I've read over and over how the photographer wishes we could see it bigger. 720 pixels on the short side would be a nice maximum, I think that's doable under 400K.
Paul - Just want to make sure you are aware that a link is provided where you can post a 1200 pixel version. (It's the "View Larger Photo" link just below the 720 pixel images in the galleries.) Not everyone uses it, and it does require preparing 2 files, but it's a good compromise I think.
Discussion
18 repliesAll it takes is $$ to the programmer, but if enough of you like the idea I will pursue it.
As always, your suggestions are appreciated!
Also, I haven't posted many images, but with the few I did, I noticed something: You can get a decent size shot to upload with good quality with a filesize between 250KB-300KB. Getting it down to 200KB actually involves destroying image quality. Is there anyway filesize limits for uploads can be increased to at least 300KB-400KB? That size image is NOTHING in today's world of gigabytes in your shirt pocket. And NPN has the best images I've seen concentrated in one public site, but the number of images is next door to nothing when you compare against Flickr and Webshots and other monster image websites. Even if the Forums are limited to 200KB, galleries on Photoportpholios.net having to squish to 200K (I have fonts bigger than that) is quite a task.
Just a thought! Hope I'm not ruffling feathers somewhere...
Basically I agree that 200KB is pretty small - especially given the cost of storage these days. But I'll have to really disagree with this unless you think that all of the images on this site have had their quality destroyed. Perhaps something like "Save for Web" or something else that really works to minimize file size (stripping EXIF, etc.) might help? Occasionally I've had to go pretty low in compression for highly detailed images (or noisy images - which is the same thing for file size purposes); But the main issue there is the pixel dimensions being too small for the amount of detail you want to show, not really the file size.
In any case, I think the reason the 200 KB limit is maintained is because of a fair number of members in far flung places still on dial-up. And I think the larger image posts really help solve the problem for everyone.
An occasional exception is when I crop an image square, which adds quite a bit to the file size compared with a standard horizontal or vertical crop with 720 pixels on the long side. And once in awhile when I have an image with lots and lots of different colors and busy edges (quite a rare combo with the type of work I do), I've got to knock it down below 90 percent quality.
I will say that on occasion I've opted not to post an image that was square and needed to be reduced to 75 percent or lower image quality.
Bumping up the thumbnail size is a desirable move, IMO.
We could go a little more on file size too.
I've seldom had trouble keeping a 720 px image under 200 KB and still looking good. And I've rarely needed more than 300KB for the 1200 px version.
No, you're right David, the images on here have been gorgeous... I didn't word that correctly. The problem is how small they have to get. I've read over and over how the photographer wishes we could see it bigger. 720 pixels on the short side would be a nice maximum, I think that's doable under 400K.