INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2579 times:
Hi everyone,
I'd like to kick off a little discussion (hopefully with crew input) on the maximum filesize allowed for photos here.
The reason for that is that I noticed on several occassions lately that I can't even upload a shot 1200pixels wide because the size of the file is more than 1MB - the current limit.
During the past three uploads of mine I had to go back and upload the image in 1024pixels - which is quite small to begin with, especially if there'd be plenty of details in a photograph to see.
With the current (and upcoming) high-quality equipment, wouldn't it be sensible to raise the allowed filesize on uploads, say for example to 1,5MB?
I am sure a lot of users would appreciate larger photos to look at, and with the PC screens available these days and resolutions up to 1600+ pix a 1024-sized image is really just a tiny speck on your screen.
Just a thought - I am sure others are experiencing the same.
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2580 posts, RR: 2 Reply 1, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2572 times:
Quoting INNflight (Thread starter): During the past three uploads of mine I had to go back and upload the image in 1024pixels
Personally, that is all I would ever upload at anyway due to the risk of none consented use of photos, ie you can get a decent print from 1600 pixels. I know some prefer to upload at larger sizes, but 1024 pixels is more than enough in my opinion to view on screens and therefore the 1mb file size limit is fine.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 2, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2570 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
Quoting INNflight (Thread starter): I am sure a lot of users would appreciate larger photos to look at, and with the PC screens available these days and resolutions up to 1600+ pix a 1024-sized image is really just a tiny speck on your screen.
Flo,
the max allowed size for uploaded photos is 1600 pixels.
If you save a 1600 pixels photo with a minimal compression factor, you should be able to reduce the volume of the file to below 1MB with minimal (most often not even noticeable) quality loss.
I surely don't wanna cut short the discussion but given those facts, I think there's not much need for action on this at the moment.
Always happy to hear any opinions on this though of course.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 3, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 2561 times:
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 1): Personally, that is all I would ever upload at anyway due to the risk of none consented use of photos, ie you can get a decent print from 1600 pixels. I know some prefer to upload at larger sizes, but 1024 pixels is more than enough in my opinion to view on screens and therefore the 1mb file size limit is fine.
In principle I agree Darren, but I upload with watermarks visible, so I don't mind uploading in 1200. I never actually go for 1600.
I hadn't thought about reducing the quality of the file Thierry - I always try to keep it at the highest level for obvious screening reasons
dazbo5 From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2580 posts, RR: 2 Reply 4, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2555 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 3): In principle I agree Darren, but I upload with watermarks visible, so I don't mind uploading in 1200. I never actually go for 1600.
Watermarks are fine, but it's easy to get around them. Watermarks aren't shown on photos for site members.
Darren
Equipment: 2x Canon EOS 50D; Sigma 10-20 EX DC HSM, 50-500 EX APO DG, Canon 24-105 f/4 L, Speedlite 430EX
unattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 5, posted (2 years 2 months 3 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 2553 times:
Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 4): Watermarks aren't shown on photos for site members
spencer From United Kingdom, joined Apr 2004, 1624 posts, RR: 19 Reply 6, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 23 hours ago) and read 2439 times:
Hello Flo mate, alright?!! Have you tried saving for web instead of just saving? There you can use the slider and get whatever file size you want. Ideal for bigger files.
Spence
EOS1D4, 7D, 30D, 100-400/4.5-5.6 L IS USM, 70-200/2.8 L IS2 USM, 17-40 f4 L USM, 24-105 f4 L IS USM, 85 f1.8 USM
whisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 552 posts, RR: 9 Reply 7, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 22 hours ago) and read 2436 times:
Agree with Spence, the save for web option is great in comparison to the standard feature.
Also, if you use the standard feature the difference between no compression (12) and the next level (11) is very hard to spot in the direct comparison.
One thing to keep in mind (not the most important one though) is that more and more people are using mobile internet to view pictures, which means that filesize is not completely unimportant.
My advise for you, Flo is to simply stop taking pictures with mountains in the background. Shoot plane + blue sky and you will be fine with 1MB for 1600px shots
whisperjet From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 552 posts, RR: 9 Reply 11, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2345 times:
Save for web allows you to to choose the compression on a scale from 1-100 whereas the save as function is 1-12 only. Smaller steps mean that you can compress the picture so that it is just below 1MB. Save for web also works a bit different, it strips the EXIF for example.
teopilot From Italy, joined Jul 2010, 528 posts, RR: 2 Reply 12, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2340 times:
Quoting whisperjet (Reply 11): Save for web allows you to to choose the compression on a scale from 1-100 whereas the save as function is 1-12 only. Smaller steps mean that you can compress the picture so that it is just below 1MB. Save for web also works a bit different, it strips the EXIF for example.
Roger!
And thank you very much for the explanation!
So, are you suggesting to use it instead of the "save as..." tool?
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 13, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2335 times:
Quoting INNflight (Thread starter): I'd like to kick off a little discussion (hopefully with crew input) on the maximum filesize allowed for photos here.
I've used the slider a few times to reduce it slightly, but I hear ya Flo, I don't like to that!
However, what I have the bigger issue with is the new restriction on including the Pixel size in the comments of the photo. I feel that if my 1500px shot was so sharp, passed the rigorous screening process, I should be able to post the pixel size in the comments if I so choose. It's hard enough to get one accepted with the increased scrutiny since the tiny imperfections that may not be noticeable in a 1024x shot become more apparent and visible to the screeners.
To me it's an unnecessary restriction that the powers at be shouldn't even be involved in. I'm not uploading anything past 1200x now with the new restriction.
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
Jid From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, RR: 35 Reply 14, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 2329 times:
Quoting whisperjet (Reply 11): Save for web allows you to to choose the compression on a scale from 1-100 whereas the save as function is 1-12 only. Smaller steps mean that you can compress the picture so that it is just below 1MB. Save for web also works a bit different, it strips the EXIF for example.
Save for web is a far more expansive way to save a file as you say - strip EXIF data? NO it does not do that unless you specify it to do so.
Jid
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 16, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2285 times:
Quoting spencer (Reply 15): If I'm reading this right are we not allowed to remark on the pixel size of our images anymore?
Hi Spence, correct.
Hopefully I'm not "hijacking" this thread. I've been kinda busy lately, and all this talk of pixels jogged my memory.
Two weeks ago I uploaded a 1500px photo (BA B744) and wrote in my comments 1500px. It got accepted, but the comment was removed. Since I was unaware of this "policy" I did a correction to the editor to fix a grammar error and to add back in the 1500px note. I didn't hear anything back, and my request for correction must have been ignored (thanks).
Since then, I emailed a couple of informed people and I was told that it may be seen as a hit seeking comment any reference to large file size would be removed.
But like i said above. You take an usually high quality shot, you know those rare ones (for me anyway) that the quality is just above and beyond the norm. You go through an ultra careful editing process. You wait the week for screening, which your chances for acceptance are probably less since it is such a large file and all the imperfections are more visible, you should be able to write it in the comments the photo size (or put what you want).
If the powers that be truly think it is indeed hit seeking, and heck maybe it is a little, however, I think it is more noting ones accomplishment, then what is next to be removed from comments? Would an comment reflecting high iso used be omitted next? Could a 10,000ISO comment be seen as hit seeking? What about a shot with a slower than normal shutter speed? Will that be removed / banned next?
I think it's just a silly waste of time this policy. Almost as silly as my little waste of time rant, but if the waste of time policy wasn't made, I wouldn't have to waste my time on the rant.
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
vikkyvik From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 8226 posts, RR: 28 Reply 17, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 8 hours ago) and read 2279 times:
I actually very much agree with your waste-of-time rant. I had thought I read that the rule was putting ONLY the resolution in the comment, but I'm not sure where I thought I read that.
I've put camera data in some of my comments (i.e. shutter speed, ISO, F-stop). That could easily be considered hit-seeking.
I upload at 1200 or 1280 (when I can) because I like looking at photos that size, therefore I feel I should reciprocate. I haven't yet, but searching for "1600" would probably be a good way to find photos taken at that resolution. I don't understand the problem with "hit-seeking" if that's exactly what viewers are looking for.
Heck, I could search for, say "sunset" to find photos with taken around sunset. Is that hit-seeking as well, to put that in a comment?
Interesting rule change, if true, to say the least.
"Two and a Half Men" was filmed in front of a live ostrich.
tarantulalv From United States of America, joined May 2008, 39 posts, RR: 0 Reply 18, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2258 times:
cpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 44 Reply 19, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 7 hours ago) and read 2243 times:
Quoting RonS (Reply 16): Could a 10,000ISO comment be seen as hit seeking? What about a shot with a slower than normal shutter speed? Will that be removed / banned next?
I might also note that these kinds of discussions/comments are best directed towards the database editors/staff of the site. I've contacted them a few times on certain comments I've considered not acceptable, or rather, bordering on advertising for a commercial operation.
I see your point, but, the site functionality doesn't provide a better solution at the moment - and there are better ways to make that point than make examples of other peoples images/comments.
On the topic of file dimensions in comments, for me, it's a comment that doesn't really add any practical value. People can right click on the image and view the properties to see the dimensions. The camera settings are something I sometimes include, since I usually get asked about those. It'd be nice if there was an EXIF feature that would show those, then I could use that.
Now, on upload sizes, the size of those shouldn't matter if it is above 1mb, because the uploads aren't from mobile devices, but rather computers on internet connections. Once the image is uploaded, it is compressed - where it is smaller, but unfortunately - the worth of that is limited by the design of airliners.net which is not suitable for the mobile space. Sometimes it is mandatory to browse a.net on a iPhone 4 with Javascript disabled as some parts of the site/forum cause the phone to freeze up for a while. A dedicated iPhone type site (such as what smh.com.au or news.com.au do) would be a valuable addition given the popularity of those kinds of devices.
RonS From United States of America, joined Feb 2009, 761 posts, RR: 24 Reply 20, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2231 times:
Quoting cpd (Reply 19): Those two photos of mine with those comments can be removed
I would say absolutely not. It's imperative for the viewer of those types of photos to know the settings. Sorry Chris, wasn't directed at you in any way. I was using an example of things that could be deleted next. I could have easily used Camera equipment instead of Camera settings though. To further my example, could remarks in one's comments that contain "Canon 1DMKIV" (or another very high end camera or camera lens) be deleted next if the powers that be determine that now those comments are hit seeking? If you start with the image size deletion, the next comment to get deleted is image settings (ISO, Shutter speed,etc) then image equipment (expensive cameras, etc).
If you start this arbitrary nonsense of deleting comments in regards to image size, where does it end? Sorry, I just hate any kind of perceived censorship, in any form. Whether it be removing posts, removing comments, etc.
Quoting cpd (Reply 19): I might also note that these kinds of discussions/comments are best directed towards the database editors.
Possibly, but this "filesize" discussion thread seemed like a great segue into a "filesize" discussion as it relates to being included in the comments.
Plus since the database editors simply ignored my request to change the comment online, I guess this is as good as anywhere to "discuss" it. I'm perplexed why this change was made by the crew or whoever without even advising us photogs, or discussing it amongst us contributors. Maybe I missed it?
On one hand it seems like a simple change, one that I could easily "get over" but I have to ask, where will it end?
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
unattendedbag From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, RR: 1 Reply 21, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 6 hours ago) and read 2217 times:
Quoting cpd (Reply 19): I might also note that these kinds of discussions/comments are best directed towards the database editors/staff of the site.
Just to interject here, I believe there is no better place to discuss these types of changes than here in the forums. The censorship of remarks effects everyone here. It's just sad that no one was informed prior and we only found out after a photographer was denied two requests to add a remark without reason.
Unfortunately this rule has been confirmed in a thread whose title has nothing to do with photo remarks making it even more difficult to locate if needed for reference.
moose135 From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 2009 posts, RR: 12 Reply 22, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 4 hours ago) and read 2192 times:
Quoting RonS (Reply 20): If you start with the image size deletion, the next comment to get deleted is image settings (ISO, Shutter speed,etc) then image equipment (expensive cameras, etc).
But settings and equipment have a direct bearing on how the image was captured, and may be useful to someone viewing the image. And while we're at it, let me add a vote for including EXIF data, then you won't have to include it in the comments. The image size is simply an arbitrary decision that the photographer made when uploading the image. Uploading at 1024x, 1200x, 1600x, or larger doesn't change how the image was made. If I decide to open the image, it's fairly easy to determine the size if I'm interested in knowing.
gphoto From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 818 posts, RR: 27 Reply 23, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 6 days 1 hour ago) and read 2165 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW DATABASE EDITOR
Quoting RonS (Reply 20): Plus since the database editors simply ignored my request to change the comment online, I guess this is as good as anywhere to "discuss" it.
Hello Ron,
The Database Editor team have been informed that pixel size is no longer allowed in photo comments. We will therefore be unable to progress any requests to add such information via our corrections queue in future. Your update was not ignored, but the system does not automatically contact correctors on the status of updates. Hope this explains the silence on this one!
Generally, most updates are handled within a day or two, with trickier ones taking maybe up to a couple of weeks (sometimes longer) depending on the amount of research required. All updates are investigated, and only in a few cases are they deleted without action for being either incorrect or unverifiable. I have to say that the majority of updates we receive are of a high and accurate standard, so I'd like to take this opportunity to say thankyou to those of you who do so, especially our 'regulars' - you know who you are!
dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 24, posted (2 years 2 months 2 weeks 5 days 23 hours ago) and read 2152 times:
We have indeed been removing size comments for quite some time now and I will try to explain the rationale behind it.
I think that the majority of people here will realise that it is far more difficult to get an image accepted at 1600 than at the smaller sizes and some like to advertise that fact, often accompanied by a string of exclamation marks. It is hard not to see that as a 'boast' - that they have managed to get an image accepted at that size (does anyone ever advertise the fact that they have submitted the image at 1024 or 1000 wide ?) I suppose we could fiddle about and remove the exclamation marks but the inclusion of the 1600 comment in itself serves to encourage more people to try to submit them at that size.
From a screening perspective, we reject a far higher proportion of 1600 images and from the point of the view of the site, it is far better that less people submitted images at 1600 rather than more. There is nothing to stop you doing so if you wish and anyone can find the size if they want to simply by right clicking. As Moose135 says, that is a choice made by the photographer sitting at their computer and means little. Exposure or camera details are welcomed as they can assist others.
We have always reserved the right to edit the comment field and we do a lot, removing long-winded, sexist, rascist, irrelevant, pointless and hit seeking comments.
Mick Bajcar
25 RonS: Good question, that's what I'm getting at. If it starts with pixel size, where does it stop? Exactly, why take that away from a viewer if that's what
26 Jid: I have to say I normally stay out of this sort of thread but removing the pixel size from the comments is just bizarre. I do tend to look at an image
27 clickhappy: The removal of photo size comments has nothing to do with censorship. While we enjoy providing our customers (the photographers) a place to express th
28 Jid: I quite agree Royal [1600px] is just fine anything else wold be excessive, turn that into part of the comment rule structure and then we are not penal
29 EliaLechner: /sign Well said! Thanks! Nothing more to add. The good work seems not to be appreciated here. I hear too much stories from fellow photographers which
30 unattendedbag: Then I would suggest rejecting the photo on the basis of the disallowed remark. I would suggest not approving the "Correct Information" remark change
31 Psych: I will look forward to reading that Royal. I must say this whole issue of 'hit-seeking' is one that has always interested me. Taken to its (il)logica
32 spencer: If you look very closely you'll see I caught the beacon on this 1600!!!!! wide shot of this ultra rare plane here at my local, shot at 1/2 sec! Haha,
33 RonS: Exactly, also put it in the Rejection Guide, a short blurb and the offenders won't have a leg to stand on. And I appreciate everyone in the Crew who
34 LOCsta: i had a simple " [1600px] " comment removed from an image recently, and this thread explains it. Of course you can easily see what the image size is i
35 geezer: Lot of opinions being expressed here ! I'm not about to get into the big "pixel size" issue, but while everyone is on the subject of "comments" made b
36 clickhappy: Update - We have decided to disallow any comments relating to file size in the Photographer Remarks section. The following addition has been added to
37 McG1967: Royal, that seems a fair statement to include in the rejection guide. It might also be a good idea to add it to the 1st page of the photo upload proce
38 vikkyvik: Thanks for the update. Although I haven't put image sizes in my comments, and don't really intend to, I have to say I don't understand the rationale
39 RonS: That's quite a shame, I'm pretty disappointed. Would be really nice to know the reason you reached this conclusion. Sounds like Mick is going to have
40 chris78cpr: Why not just set a rule that only 1024x pictures can be uploaded? If your advising and asking everyone to upload at this size then just set a rule/res
41 andrew50: I am hoping a.net does not go the way of being a site where only 1024 pixel photos are allowed. There are so many great photographers on this site who
Sponsor Message: 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2005, 2580 posts, 
From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, 
From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 2240 posts, 
From Germany, joined Nov 2007, 552 posts, 
From Belgium, joined May 2004, 281 posts, 
From Italy, joined Jul 2010, 528 posts, 
From Barbados, joined Dec 2004, 960 posts, 
From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
