Is there any possibility of larger image sizes being allowed for posting? Many of the other nature photography websites allow 800px or more now, and making a second or even third version for sites with more restrictive limits adds quite a bit of time to a PP workflow.
With monitor size and resolutions always increasing, it only makes sense for image sizes to increase in order to see enough detail.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 23, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Greg,
We can as members post a 1200 pixel image in addition to the 720 pixel image when you make (upload) the original post. It has been that way from some time now
Yes, I understand that, but I was wondering if the base 720px size would be increased. That way there's no need to make separate 720px, 800px etc versions, and everyone could standardize on 800.
Posted by Mia McPherson on October 23, 2010 at 8:49 PM
Greg, I think that 800 pixels is still small and prefer the 1200 pixel version. There are still people on dial up and having all of them at 1200 pixels would take awhile to download for them. I don't think it is difficult at all to make the 720 pixel and 1200 pixel version at all "if" you save the sharpening mask and make a duplicate to resize at 720 pixels then sharpen after resizing.
Posted by Greg Schneider on October 24, 2010 at 10:10 AM
Hey Mia - I was referring to the base image size. As Cincy mentioned, if people don't make a larger 1200px version (yet another version to make if you're posting to numerous sites!) at least the 800px is better than 720.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 24, 2010 at 11:02 AM
Greg,
This is another one of those topics that come up on a regular basis. How big of a photo should we allow? How many KBs should it be? How come the thumbnails are so small (OK, that one doesn't come up anymone)? How come you can't make it 900 pixels like site X or 800 pixels like site Y?
Bottom line is there is no "recognized standard size" and any designation of such is really quite arbitrary. In our case, 720 pixels fits within the fixed width of our gallery pages without breaking the page layout and table graphics. We allow the very generous 1200 pixel optional upload to open in a new window for those who want to use it.
So, we have generous thumbnail sizes, perhaps an odd 720 pixel standard and the mega 1200 pixel option. All-in-all, few if any other NP sites offer this.
My apologies, but I don't buy the "workflow" complaint. Like Mia said, make one large file and then as the final step, size and sharpen accordingly. In the context of capturing the photo and doing all of the post-shutter work, how much extra time does this really represent? And, why would you want to post nature photos anywhwere else than on NPN anyway?
BTW, I just viewed your gallery. I'd love to see your photos at 1200 pixels!
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 24, 2010 at 1:11 PM
Just another observation, I surfed over to another one of the popular sites on my compact laptop that I use for travel (1024 X 768 screen). I opened one of the photos posted in their forum and their software (1) resizes the page based on monitor resoltion and (2) applied scroll bars to the photo, which was sized to 800 pixels in width.
Which left me wondering, if I can't see the entire photo without scrolling with a still-common screen resoltion, what's the point? I'd rather have it small enough to see without any scrolling required, which is why NPN remains 1024 X 768 friendly.
Good points Jim, thanks for clarifying your end. From a workflow perspective, it can vary depending on how much you PP. Selective sharpening/NR does add more time if you make a number of versions.
You do have a good point about the 1200px res being better than any other site, and I'll have to start uploading larger.
Posted by Steve Cole on October 25, 2010 at 5:54 PM
If posting images larger than 720 pixels "breaks" the formatting for the website, perhaps the website needs to be brought up to the modern age. I do not like that I have to make a special one-off image to post to this site and, for this reason, I don't participate.
If you do happen to specify a file that is larger than the limits (width or size), the warning appears and then you promptly lose any writeup you spent time crafting. This part is REALLY annoying.
Posted by David Bostedo on October 25, 2010 at 11:25 PM
A couple of things to maybe thing about Steve...
I do not like that I have to make a special one-off image to post to this site and, for this reason, I don't participate.
As Jim said, there really is no standard. 720 is what was chosen here, and works well for portrait images on many monitors (especially laptops) where a larger image might be too big for the screen regardless of website format. If a larger size were allowed, it's likely that many other people would have the same issue with "one off" that you have. Also, I find that I can make the 720 pixel version in literally a minute or 2 at most. Once you get used to it, it's really quick.
If you do happen to specify a file that is larger than the limits (width or size), the warning appears and then you promptly lose any writeup you spent time crafting. This part is REALLY annoying.
I just hit the "back" button in my browser, and everything is just fine - it keeps everything I've typed. Maybe you have a browser setting that could help this? Or a different browser? (I use Firefox almost exclusively.)
I think the 720px limit is fine. I think I can speak for those of us who have done web site development when I say that making a change in image size would create a whole cascade of issues with the site's pages. I also agree with David's observations.
If any change were to be made, it would be in regard to increasing the allowable file size from 200KB to (say) 250, or even 300KB. Many images that are very detailed suffer badly from compression when downsized to 200KB.
I can imagine that server space is an issue, and those on dialup connections would have to wait longer. so I can see that the 200KB limit is an attempt to balance compression against storage resources and download time. Still, I think it's worthwhile bringing this up for Jim's thoughts.
--P
Posted by Jim Erhardt on October 26, 2010 at 5:21 AM
One of the things we experimented with years ago is a script that takes an over size photo and reduces it to 720 pixels/200kb when uploading. This way, a member can take a file already prepared and use it, with the software re-sizing it to make it fit. Though the results were not always great, we could give that a try again.
Yes, I think we can easily go to 300kb on the standard photo - we will make it so!
We're dinosaurs I'm sure in our belief that there's virtue in limiting the size of our photos we post or distribute for free. Smaller sizes are less useful to thieves. We'll continue to post no larger than 640 pixels. It's become our standard for jpeg prep, so that's in our workflow in any case.
Posted by Pam Colander on October 26, 2010 at 12:56 PM
Yay! 300 will be the new limit? Awesome! Glad this came up again. Good stuff comes from thoughtful discussion Thanks for always being willing to listen Jim!
Posted by Bret Edge on October 27, 2010 at 9:53 PM
I'm okay with the current standard and jumbo sizes offered in the galleries but the 200 kb size definitely needs to be increased. I see no reason that the 300 kb proposed size limit shouldn't be sufficient. Thanks for taking this on, Jim.
Since I'm one of those who is still on dial-up (28k) most of the time (except when we take our laptop to town), I'm not thrilled about having to wait even longer to watch things load up....
I wish there was a way to know how many kb an image is just by looking at the thumbnail page. I understand that compression really kills a detailed image, but I can't tell you how many times I have just given up on waiting for an image to show up.
I wonder how many of us are still on dial-up?
Discussion
17 repliesWith monitor size and resolutions always increasing, it only makes sense for image sizes to increase in order to see enough detail.
We can as members post a 1200 pixel image in addition to the 720 pixel image when you make (upload) the original post. It has been that way from some time now
This is another one of those topics that come up on a regular basis. How big of a photo should we allow? How many KBs should it be? How come the thumbnails are so small (OK, that one doesn't come up anymone)? How come you can't make it 900 pixels like site X or 800 pixels like site Y?
Bottom line is there is no "recognized standard size" and any designation of such is really quite arbitrary. In our case, 720 pixels fits within the fixed width of our gallery pages without breaking the page layout and table graphics. We allow the very generous 1200 pixel optional upload to open in a new window for those who want to use it.
So, we have generous thumbnail sizes, perhaps an odd 720 pixel standard and the mega 1200 pixel option. All-in-all, few if any other NP sites offer this.
My apologies, but I don't buy the "workflow" complaint. Like Mia said, make one large file and then as the final step, size and sharpen accordingly. In the context of capturing the photo and doing all of the post-shutter work, how much extra time does this really represent? And, why would you want to post nature photos anywhwere else than on NPN anyway?
BTW, I just viewed your gallery. I'd love to see your photos at 1200 pixels!
Which left me wondering, if I can't see the entire photo without scrolling with a still-common screen resoltion, what's the point? I'd rather have it small enough to see without any scrolling required, which is why NPN remains 1024 X 768 friendly.
You do have a good point about the 1200px res being better than any other site, and I'll have to start uploading larger.
If you do happen to specify a file that is larger than the limits (width or size), the warning appears and then you promptly lose any writeup you spent time crafting. This part is REALLY annoying.
As Jim said, there really is no standard. 720 is what was chosen here, and works well for portrait images on many monitors (especially laptops) where a larger image might be too big for the screen regardless of website format. If a larger size were allowed, it's likely that many other people would have the same issue with "one off" that you have. Also, I find that I can make the 720 pixel version in literally a minute or 2 at most. Once you get used to it, it's really quick.
I just hit the "back" button in my browser, and everything is just fine - it keeps everything I've typed. Maybe you have a browser setting that could help this? Or a different browser? (I use Firefox almost exclusively.)
If any change were to be made, it would be in regard to increasing the allowable file size from 200KB to (say) 250, or even 300KB. Many images that are very detailed suffer badly from compression when downsized to 200KB.
I can imagine that server space is an issue, and those on dialup connections would have to wait longer. so I can see that the 200KB limit is an attempt to balance compression against storage resources and download time. Still, I think it's worthwhile bringing this up for Jim's thoughts.
--P
Yes, I think we can easily go to 300kb on the standard photo - we will make it so!
If an image was resized on the fly and the photographer did not like the result, would there be a way for them to upload a replacement image?
Many thanks for your willingness to increase the max allowable file size! When will this take effect?
I know I speak for all us here at NPN when I express my sincere thanks to you and Donna for your responsiveness to our needs and desires!
--P
I wish there was a way to know how many kb an image is just by looking at the thumbnail page. I understand that compression really kills a detailed image, but I can't tell you how many times I have just given up on waiting for an image to show up.
I wonder how many of us are still on dial-up?