Clickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9732 posts, RR: 66 Posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 3109 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW PHOTO SCREENER
Why is there this alarming trend of photogs uploading more and more shots at large sizes (talking wider than 1024 pixels)?
It's such a waste. If you are reading this, and wondering if I am talking about you, I probably am
Take a look at the accomplised shooters at this site, and see how many of them upload at wider than 1024 pixels. Maybe the odd (high quality) shot, or something worthy of a longer look, but this trend of everything being uploaded at 1300 pixels in bananas.
Futterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 41
Reply 13, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2879 times:
Wait...so WHY shouldn't we upload any bigger than 1024?
Forget the fact that it may be special. All my shots, regardless of how unique and significant a small number of them may be, are uploaded at 1024 simply because it provides the best tradeoff between quality (and even then, I'll be lucky to get it accepted) and the satisfaction of A.net requirements.
And as it's also the most widley used screen resolution, it solves the issue of 'FITSCR'-viewed photos looking like poo.
It still baffles me how this one guy, Same Chui I think his name is, has uploaded a buttload at 1000 wide. What gives?
Ghost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5252 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 2864 times:
Oh no! Another hot topic from Clickhappy
Fascination Of Uploading @ Larger Sizes. Why?
People want to get their pictures stolen more easily! Or let other people download their pictures, crop the a.net copyright, store them in a CD, go to the lab and print them in a good poster quality, then hang them on the wall! And what did the photographer got from this? Nothing!
Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
Erwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 500 posts, RR: 41
Reply 21, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2824 times:
Since I don't have a wall-to-wall computer monitor, it's really annoying viewing those large pictures (and that is anything over 1024) - you can only see part of the picture and you have to - and that is the most irritating part - scrolling...
When a 'large' picture opens I don't even wait until it is downloaded.
So dear photographers, remember next time that you have an audience, please make the viewing experience a comfortable one. We hate those scroll bars.
(Funny to see that the most professional and experienced photographers upload mostly in 1024)
Rotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 15
Reply 22, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2817 times:
I am all 1200 x 800 here ...... , if I want to show something different or just like the picture very much, and quality is very good I take 1600 ... but anyhow , really dont care , what size you upload as long the overall quality is good. and btw : pictures get stolen everyday, doesnt matter if 1024 or 1200 , though chances are higher if you upload at 1600.
would guess 95% of my pictures at 1200, the rest at 1600 ..
JeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3267 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2813 times:
While people may scarf a few photos if you upload them larger then 1024 x *** size, the resolution is still 72 dpi on screen, so they won't be printing them much larger then 5 x 7 or max 8 x 10. I would doubt anyone gets any in a magazine straight from here. For me it's just a convienence thing... I like to open a picture and have it fit inside the full screen window.
I would not call the trend alarming..... maybe useless is a better word?
Diezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (10 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 2804 times:
Please do not stop uploading larger sizes.
It is not a waste. At least not for me. I actually like the larger size photos better than the smaller ones. I do have a high res monitor and I know there are more and more people getting a high res monitor.
Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
: LOL Clickhappy u seem really in the whining mood lately eh? First "Why do people diss the side shot?" now this? Big f_cking deal. When was anyone diss
: Yeah 1024 feels like an outdated resolution. I run my comps in 1280, before that I ran 1152. I like to upload at 1100x wide, helps give some more res
: Hi All, As a screener, my 2c worth is related to photos that are 1600 wide. I don't think there's any need to make something so huge. Worse still, ima
: To reply to NWA742: Just a quick question, if I were to upload a picture at 1024 x 768, would it be better to: A: take the shot at a higher resolution
: I am running my monitor also on 1280x1024 ... , thats basically my reason to send in the pics at 1200 x 800 ..... , the fit just perfect on my monitor
: Thanks for bringing this important and very critical issue to our attention. I will do my very best to ensure these outrageous excesses of size never
: All my shots since going digital are uploaded to a height of 768 with the width calculated in proportion automatically. Why you may ask? Because that'
: Oh jeez, how about we go down to 640x480 size so we can cater to the PDA crowd now... Seriously how much detail is lost in PScs saving at 1280x960 und
: When I first started to upload photos to a.net a few months ago, I uploaded at 1024 x 682. Since then, I have upgraded my monitor to a 19 inch with a
: I think the majority of everyday users still run at 1024, its kind of the standard spec for those who don't have/not interested in fancy monitors. I u
: Airliners.net started out with no size requirements at all, then went up to 640x480, then increased to 800x600 and now it's 1024x768. The reasons we a
: What the futt??? My buttload is bigger than yours go figure What the Chui? Looking back at my post, it seems as if I were talking about some guy named
: clickhappy, if the site accepts the larger size, why question why people upload them? I upload the odd one at a larger size, mainly because some photo
: I've only uploaded a handful of photo's at 1280 or 1600 as an experiment, and yes they looked really nice on a 21" CRT I had in the office. But I foun
: Many times I go up to 1100 or 1150 px wide to allow me to center a shot and still keep the height at 768 px. After all, isn't the minimum 768?
: JohnJ no its not. At 1024x a DSLR shot will become 683x high to keep the aspect ratio, which is fine to upload.
: I dont think clickhappy was really whining about anything. All he's doing is presenting topics that are current and evoke discussion from a lot of peo
: it isn't the large sizes that are bad, its that the bad photographers choose to upload at the larger sizes, thats my point. Learn to walk before you r
: Yes, I like uploading at 1600x1064. I don't feel ashamed for that. One of the things I like of photography is the way that freezes reality so you can
: I am new here - but after reading the last 3 posts - looks like Crewmember Tonimr likes to upload big photos and BigPhil has maternal (motherly instin
: how about we go down to 640x480 size so we can cater to the PDA crowd I know that remark was made with a smile, however, perhaps it requires a little
: Doesn't matter to me - big or small - I like 'em all !! I have to say - this site shows wonderful photos !!
: Most of the "why was this picture rejected, help me" threads now show pictures that are WAY to large. .... and most of the "help me" threads are from
: The Photo Upload FAQ states: "Furthermore the photos need to be bigger than about 800x600 pixels. We suggest using sizes around 1000 pixels in width.
: CKW, About that PDA comment, In the future how about adding the ability to upload at least 2 different images sizes of the same picture? Along with th
: "how about we go down to 640x480 size so we can cater to the PDA crowd" Along the same line, If I upload at 640x480. My acceptance rate would be highe
: Well, laptop folks like myself tend to run the native resolution, which in my case (Dell Ultrasharp) is 1600x1200. I don't mind the larger pictures at