720px isn't a large enough pixel size to truly provide an image for proper critique IMHO. Initial viewing of an inferior 720 px image can put a stigma on the image even after clicking on the larger version that is currently offered. Yes, it would require tweaking the web page frame header.php / footer/php to accommodate.
Yes, a 1 meter print viewed at 3 meters with MR16 halogen bulbs with a CRI 0f 99+ positioned and placed above with a perfect even flux of illumination in a grey room would be ideal. Lets just do that for the web and allow 1000 px width images on the original post page. Even if it's link only so NPN doesn't have to deal with the additional bandwidth.
Would anyone else like this ?
NPN should do a (free) survey monkey and ask it's patrons if their onboard IMHO.
Posted by Lorna Taylor on May 19, 2011 at 11:22 AM
It would be very helpful for me as my images really suffer from loss of sharpness and is often critiqued as so. It can be frustrating as people view an image you know is sharp but the transfer does not fit my image sizes. Thanks Matt !
I think the existing 720 - 1200 combination is a good compromise and see no need to change. 720 does the job in Avian, and for those who really want to show off the quality of their images the 1200 pixel version is available. Going to 1000 means a page/site redesign, slower downloads, and a greater chance of image theft.
I agree with Richard - the 720-1200 is a good compromise. Also, the extra 30% on each photo adds significantly to the disk space requirements for hosting, and the bandwidth in upload/download of the photos. There is also the issue of those not willing to publish the larger images due to image theft - I notice a lot of the pros don't load a larger image than the 720 version, I'm guessing for theft issues. Stay the course - it's OK as is.
I quite agree with Richard and Wick about the danger of image theft. Thank you for bringing this up! There's enough of this problem out there without NPN adding to it.
I'm with Rich and the others. The convenience and ease of a larger image is FAR overshadowed by the dangers of image theft, which many of us deal with regularly.
Also, not everyone is capable of having the fast download which would be pretty much required - either living in remoter places (like our Alaska people, for instance) or traveling often.
I think we are presently at a good compromise.
If you feel strongly that a larger size is needed for your images, you could link to another place that does support a larger size.
Sandy
Since a 1200 pixel option is already available, I don't see the point. If you feel the 720 version suffers, simply direct viewers to comment based on the larger version.
One doesn't have to post a larger photo, but one would have the option to do so for the main posted image.
Sorry to say, but bandwidth needs is, and will always be increasing.
It works on fred miranda. (a larger image option)
I just checked your NPN Gallery and see that before today you haven't even bothered to use the optional 1200 pixel option. If you were not happy with the 720 px size why weren't you already using the 1200 px option?
Hi Rich,
I've used it in the past. Quite a bit actually. I've also created special html pages for said purposes. My latest post really struck a chord on how fine details just don't showcase well at that size. Also, many post panoramic shots that, at 720px wide, aren't well received. (to the point where I don't think people care to even click on the larger version) I like how FM doesn't cap image sizes. I guess I'm in the minority on this one....
I feel that it's very important that the page loads fast, and the way NPN is set up, it does. However, I've often wondered why we don't go to 800px on the longest side, as the FM guys do. I am much more pleased with the image result when posting there, and I don't allow the image to go much over 200 k.
The present set up satisfies me but I would really like to be able to post at 1200 px when I do a repost of changes made, based on critique and suggestions of an originally posted image.
720 is less than every other web site I participate in. I've posted mainly newly processed images (rather than best work) on this site because it is such a hassle to go resize images that have been optimized for 800px on the long side. As a working stiff with limited time available it's hard enough to find time to process images once much less go back and resize them properly. Also agree that the 720 limit makes it very difficult to post a pano that will garner any interest.
Regarding the image theft, no one HAS to post any larger than they wish so those worried about it can simply not use the larger size.
I'm here specifically because of the small size Dan, and even at 720 I have to limit my participation. There's no choice but a slow connection where I live, and a 720 images takes 3-5 minutes to display.
If fast connections become a requirement for participation, I wonder who besides me will be gone. The optional link to 1200 seems to please lots of folks, but I dunno. Never been there.
Sure I live in Dinosaur Land with my slow connection. But I don't think this is the last outpost on earth with slow connections.
I console myself this way- The slow connection means I live where other photographers have to pay large dollars to visit! My avatar is in fact a neighbor, not a once in a lifetime glimpse.
There is some merit in the smaller size with the larger option. But 720 is so last century and out of sync with every other site known to man.
800 pixels would be better and still small enough !
Further more (I may be wrong please correct) why cant we just up load the larger size and the smaller version be automatically resized and displayed because having to resize two separate versions is a disincentive to post the larger.
Further more (I may be wrong please correct) why cant we just up load the larger size and the smaller version be automatically resized and displayed because having to resize two separate versions is a disincentive to post the larger.
IMO if you care about the way your images look you want full control over any resizing, and you want to apply any sharpening only once and as the last step in workflow. I would not want some "magic engine" behind the scenes apply some fixed one-size-fits-all algorithm to my 1200 pixel version to generate a 720 pixel version.
"IMO if you care about the way your images look you want full control over any resizing, and you want to apply any sharpening only once and as the last step in workflow. I would not want some "magic engine" behind the scenes apply some fixed one-size-fits-all algorithm to my 1200 pixel version to generate a 720 pixel version."
This had occurred to me but with respect if you care about your images you wont want it at a mere 300k 720 pixels! Even with the very best care the small size will not permit any image to be seen at its best. The 1200pixel one is the one to care about.
Which is the whole point of this discussion is it not??
This had occurred to me but with respect if you care about your images you wont want it at a mere 300k 720 pixels! Even with the very best care the small size will not permit any image to be seen at its best. The 1200pixel one is the one to care about.
That's why I always post a 1200px version along with my 720px version each time I post an image here at NPN. I hope that viewers will make the effort to look at the larger version, but having lived on a dial up connection until just recently I fully support the continued use of 720px images.
Even though the use of wide format monitors is increasing, the installed base of lower resolution monitors is still very large. This is especially true with notebooks and netbook-type computers, not to mention iPads. I believe this is one reason NPN has opted for the (approximately) 800px wide web page; bandwidth and server considerations not withstanding,
Therefore, in order to accommodate 800px, or larger images, the CSS and some of the CGI scripts for the site would need to rewritten, tested extensively, and implemented; not an insignificant task. In my opinion, such a major change to NPN's site would not be practical at present and would create issues for those with smaller screens or those who are on dial-up connections. As I stated in my previous reply, I continue to support the current image size policy.
I think 720 is too small for current times, and I brought this topic up myself a coupe of years ago. But, I am used to it, and do use the 1200 pxl option often. While Matt's suggestion of 1000 is a bit much, a compromise of 850 might work.
If my comments above came off as hostile, I apologize. They certainly were not meant to be.
Jim has probably read this thread, but until he responds, we don't know what direction the requests for larger image sizes will take. I will say this: Jim takes suggestions and feedback very seriously, and it's his call, ultimately.
Let's see where the request for larger image size goes.
--P
Posted by Lorna Taylor on June 13, 2011 at 9:42 AM
A file size of 850 would be very helpful . I agree we don't want to change anything too much and possibly lose valuable members because of slower connections. No changes are worth that.
This thread seems to be a time to bring up the fact that NPN and PhotoPortfolios.net have different image size limitations. I'm not entirely sure of the relationship, but it seems to be a close one and I'm confused about the difference in limitations. It certainly is a hassle to upload images to the two sites. Any guidance or clarification is appreciated.
Discussion
27 replieshttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Display_resolution
... with photographers in the 1920 x 1200 as the majority size.
720px isn't a large enough pixel size to truly provide an image for proper critique IMHO. Initial viewing of an inferior 720 px image can put a stigma on the image even after clicking on the larger version that is currently offered. Yes, it would require tweaking the web page frame header.php / footer/php to accommodate.
Yes, a 1 meter print viewed at 3 meters with MR16 halogen bulbs with a CRI 0f 99+ positioned and placed above with a perfect even flux of illumination in a grey room would be ideal. Lets just do that for the web and allow 1000 px width images on the original post page. Even if it's link only so NPN doesn't have to deal with the additional bandwidth.
Would anyone else like this ?
NPN should do a (free) survey monkey and ask it's patrons if their onboard IMHO.
Also, not everyone is capable of having the fast download which would be pretty much required - either living in remoter places (like our Alaska people, for instance) or traveling often.
I think we are presently at a good compromise.
If you feel strongly that a larger size is needed for your images, you could link to another place that does support a larger size.
Sandy
Sorry to say, but bandwidth needs is, and will always be increasing.
It works on fred miranda. (a larger image option)
Sounds like I'm in the minority on this one...
"Stay the Course" - "W"
I just checked your NPN Gallery and see that before today you haven't even bothered to use the optional 1200 pixel option. If you were not happy with the 720 px size why weren't you already using the 1200 px option?
I've used it in the past. Quite a bit actually. I've also created special html pages for said purposes. My latest post really struck a chord on how fine details just don't showcase well at that size. Also, many post panoramic shots that, at 720px wide, aren't well received. (to the point where I don't think people care to even click on the larger version) I like how FM doesn't cap image sizes. I guess I'm in the minority on this one....
--P
Regarding the image theft, no one HAS to post any larger than they wish so those worried about it can simply not use the larger size.
If fast connections become a requirement for participation, I wonder who besides me will be gone. The optional link to 1200 seems to please lots of folks, but I dunno. Never been there.
Sure I live in Dinosaur Land with my slow connection. But I don't think this is the last outpost on earth with slow connections.
I console myself this way- The slow connection means I live where other photographers have to pay large dollars to visit! My avatar is in fact a neighbor, not a once in a lifetime glimpse.
800 pixels would be better and still small enough !
Further more (I may be wrong please correct) why cant we just up load the larger size and the smaller version be automatically resized and displayed because having to resize two separate versions is a disincentive to post the larger.
IMO if you care about the way your images look you want full control over any resizing, and you want to apply any sharpening only once and as the last step in workflow. I would not want some "magic engine" behind the scenes apply some fixed one-size-fits-all algorithm to my 1200 pixel version to generate a 720 pixel version.
This had occurred to me but with respect if you care about your images you wont want it at a mere 300k 720 pixels! Even with the very best care the small size will not permit any image to be seen at its best. The 1200pixel one is the one to care about.
Which is the whole point of this discussion is it not??
That's why I always post a 1200px version along with my 720px version each time I post an image here at NPN. I hope that viewers will make the effort to look at the larger version, but having lived on a dial up connection until just recently I fully support the continued use of 720px images.
Even though the use of wide format monitors is increasing, the installed base of lower resolution monitors is still very large. This is especially true with notebooks and netbook-type computers, not to mention iPads. I believe this is one reason NPN has opted for the (approximately) 800px wide web page; bandwidth and server considerations not withstanding,
Therefore, in order to accommodate 800px, or larger images, the CSS and some of the CGI scripts for the site would need to rewritten, tested extensively, and implemented; not an insignificant task. In my opinion, such a major change to NPN's site would not be practical at present and would create issues for those with smaller screens or those who are on dial-up connections. As I stated in my previous reply, I continue to support the current image size policy.
--P
If my comments above came off as hostile, I apologize. They certainly were not meant to be.
Jim has probably read this thread, but until he responds, we don't know what direction the requests for larger image sizes will take. I will say this: Jim takes suggestions and feedback very seriously, and it's his call, ultimately.
Let's see where the request for larger image size goes.
--P