Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Fascination Of Uploading @ Larger Sizes. Why?  
User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 2989 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 Big grin

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.

51 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMaiznblu_757 From United States of America, joined Mar 2002, 5112 posts, RR: 50
Reply 1, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2934 times:

I might have 7 tops... at least 4 of them were my air refueling shots. IMHO, I feel that they warranted it. Most of mine are 1024x683.

User currently offlineN907CL From United States of America, joined Feb 2001, 255 posts, RR: 7
Reply 2, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2925 times:

I upload all mine at 1024; but I'm to cheap to get cable also. Smile/happy/getting dizzy



Brian
User currently offlineCV63 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 106 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2905 times:

By uploading larger than 1024 size, you give unauthorized pirates more pixel resolution to infringe on your copyright.

User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 13 hours ago) and read 2897 times:

Yeah, most people keep their monitors at a resolution of 1024 wide, so I get annoyed when I have to scrool sideways to see these shots.

Personal peeve, no big deal, but I just don't get it. It even lowers visual quality sometimes.

-Phil



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2891 times:

Some of them do warrant a larger size,

but since you are probably talking about me, I resized my last edit of that CO 738 down to 1024x768  Smile/happy/getting dizzy

I have others in the q that I feel do warrant 1280x1024


User currently offlineNWA742 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2884 times:

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 and shrink it

B. take the shot at 1024 x 768



-NWA742


User currently offlineClickhappy From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 9628 posts, RR: 68
Reply 7, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2880 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
PHOTO SCREENER

Higher res and shrink it.

Side on shots of UAL 737's dont warrant huge photo sizes...Chad's air to air stuff is special, pictures of common planes landing in common conditons aren't.

Get a 95% acceptance rate at the smaller sizes before you go big.


User currently offlineDLX737200 From United States of America, joined May 2001, 1904 posts, RR: 19
Reply 8, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2879 times:

I've only got two and I'm sure one of them inspired you to make this thread:


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Idle



I only did 1600 on this one because the 747 is a large plane and I thought a large resolution was warranted. Read my remark on it.

Full blown resolution of 1600 so you may appreciate the size of this plane. Taxiing across the Heitzelman bridge after landing on 35R. Canon 300D, 168mm, 1/500, F8, ISO 100


View Large View Medium
Click here for bigger photo!

Photo © Justin Idle



This one I just made 1300 because it was a beautiful aircraft IMHO and if you resize it to 1024, it makes it more difficult to see the reflections on the plane.

I don't do this too often as you may notice from my other photos.

-Justin


User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1680 posts, RR: 65
Reply 9, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 11 hours ago) and read 2831 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

The other good point of NOT having too large resolution is prevent someone steal a shot and use it unauthorised...  Big grin

Sam


User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Reply 10, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 10 hours ago) and read 2794 times:

Good point, Sam. Also, if you upload at a higher resolution, you open yourself up to unauthorized usage of your photos, don't forget.

-Phil

 Big grin



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineXenon From Belgium, joined Aug 2001, 494 posts, RR: 12
Reply 11, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2781 times:

Yeah!

But don't forget: They easily can make unauthorized use of your pictures
when uploading in higher resolution...

 Big grin

Daniel

 Big thumbs up



AirTeamImages -ATI-
User currently offlineCV63 From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 106 posts, RR: 3
Reply 12, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2768 times:

Good Point by all!

But don't forget....

"By uploading larger than 1024 size, you give unauthorized pirates more pixel resolution to infringe on your copyright." © © © © ©



 Big grin


User currently offlineFutterman From United States of America, joined Sep 2003, 1301 posts, RR: 44
Reply 13, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2759 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?  Big grin


Futt



What the FUTT?
User currently offlineBigphilnyc From United States of America, joined Jan 2002, 4076 posts, RR: 54
Reply 14, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2751 times:

To reiterate, "Sam uploads buttloads."

Man, I don't know what to say about that. hahaha

-Phil



Phil Derner Jr.
User currently offlineVafi88 From United States of America, joined Apr 2001, 3116 posts, RR: 17
Reply 15, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2750 times:

Most of my shots are 1200x9** pixels, don't ask me why...

Actually, why NOT upload at a higher standard?



I'd like to elect a president that has a Higher IQ than a retarted ant.
User currently offlineBronko From United States of America, joined Jul 2001, 810 posts, RR: 11
Reply 16, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2749 times:

Larger photos are still held to the maximum file size of 1024 KB. So a larger photo requires further jpeg compression to stay under the maximum file size, which means less quality.

Another reason to stay around 1024 x whatever. I have a few photos at 1200 x 800, but it was for cropping purposes only.

Ever take a photo where you simply cannot crop the plane properly at 1024 x 768? I manage to do so once in awhile.  Smile



Jet City Aviation Photography
User currently offlineN178UA From United Arab Emirates, joined Jan 2001, 1680 posts, RR: 65
Reply 17, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 9 hours ago) and read 2748 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

What the futt???
My buttload is bigger than yours go figure  Nuts


User currently offlineGhost77 From Mexico, joined Mar 2000, 5219 posts, RR: 51
Reply 18, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2744 times:

Oh no! Another hot topic from Clickhappy  Laugh out loud

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 APM




Ricardo Morales - flyAPM - ¡No es que maneje rapido, solo estoy volando lento!
User currently offlineDLKAPA From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 19, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2726 times:

So Sam, does that mean that when you plug your shots, it's a Butt-plug?  Nuts



User currently offlineAn-225 From United States of America, joined Sep 2000, 3950 posts, RR: 40
Reply 20, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2720 times:

I think that 1024 is rather small and 1600 is too big, unless it's special. So I've been sticking to 1200 without major problems.

Alex.



Money does not bring you happiness. But it's better to cry in your own private limo than on a cold bus stop.
User currently offlineErwin972 From Netherlands, joined May 2004, 500 posts, RR: 44
Reply 21, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2704 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.


Erwin


(Funny to see that the most professional and experienced photographers upload mostly in 1024)



My gear: Nikon, Sony, Red, Sachtler etc.
User currently offlineRotate From Switzerland, joined Feb 2003, 1491 posts, RR: 16
Reply 22, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2697 times:

ciao guys,

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 ..

Robin



ABC
User currently offlineJeffM From United States of America, joined May 2005, 3266 posts, RR: 51
Reply 23, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2693 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?


User currently offlineDiezel From Netherlands, joined Oct 2002, 646 posts, RR: 11
Reply 24, posted (10 years 3 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2684 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  Smile/happy/getting dizzy and I know there are more and more people getting a high res monitor.

Roel.



Never be afraid of what you like. (Miles Davis)
25 Post contains images Lorm : 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
26 ChrisH : 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
27 Glennstewart : 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
28 Glennstewart : 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
29 Rotate : 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
30 Sulman : 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
31 Post contains images Cathay112 : 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'
32 Post contains images Lorm : 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
33 Airplanepics : 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
34 Post contains images Sukhoi : 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
35 Administrator : 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
36 Futterman : 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
37 Work4bmi : 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
38 Post contains images IL76 : 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
39 JohnJ : 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?
40 ChrisH : JohnJ no its not. At 1024x a DSLR shot will become 683x high to keep the aspect ratio, which is fine to upload.
41 Bigphilnyc : 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
42 Post contains images Clickhappy : 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
43 Post contains images Tonimr : 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
44 Post contains images FiveDollarFun : 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
45 Post contains images Ckw : 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
46 FiveDollarFun : Doesn't matter to me - big or small - I like 'em all !! I have to say - this site shows wonderful photos !!
47 Willo : 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
48 DB777 : 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.
49 Post contains images Lorm : 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
50 CV63 : "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
51 Post contains images MD-90 : 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
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
The Joys, Or Not, Of Uploading To A.net posted Mon Jul 24 2006 18:17:48 by Scbriml
Use Of Autofill When Uploading Compulsory Or Not? posted Mon Sep 4 2006 00:35:48 by Irish251
Why Did You Start Uploading At Anet? posted Tue May 30 2006 12:17:23 by Chris78cpr
Why No Photos Of New Terminal D At DFW? posted Sun Oct 9 2005 13:30:56 by Svenvdm
Uploading Multiple Pix Of The Same Aircraft? posted Wed Oct 5 2005 03:19:03 by Mr Spaceman
Loss Of Quality During Uploading posted Mon Jan 17 2005 03:43:33 by Trvyyz
Why These Rejections? Genesis Of An A.net Photog posted Fri Aug 20 2004 10:06:45 by 707cmf
Out Of Curiosity - Why So Many Hits? posted Thu Apr 24 2003 17:08:00 by Boeingholiday
Why Some Of Them Was Rejected? Help posted Tue Nov 19 2002 05:57:07 by Sokol
Why Did People Start Uploading More...? posted Thu Sep 26 2002 23:06:51 by EGGD