INNflight
Topic Author
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

A Discussion About Filesize

Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:34 pm

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.

Cheers,
Jet Visuals
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sat Mar 05, 2011 5:44 pm

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
 
User avatar
ThierryD
Crew
Posts: 2029
Joined: Sun Dec 04, 2005 6:58 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:03 pm

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.

Cheers,

Thierry
"Go ahead...make my day"
 
INNflight
Topic Author
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:18 pm

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  
Jet Visuals
 
dazbo5
Posts: 2717
Joined: Tue Mar 29, 2005 8:05 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:28 pm

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
Posts: 2154
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sat Mar 05, 2011 6:30 pm

Quoting dazbo5 (Reply 4):
Watermarks aren't shown on photos for site members

make that "first class" members.
Slower traffic, keep right
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:06 am

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
Crew
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:27 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 9:20 am

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  

Stefan
Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
 
INNflight
Topic Author
Posts: 3526
Joined: Tue Apr 13, 2004 5:11 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:27 am

I am always using "save for web" for uploads, but always kept the highest quality setting to keep the screeners happy.

I think I'll follow Stefan's recommendation though - off to MUC now!  
Jet Visuals
 
bottie
Posts: 244
Joined: Sun May 30, 2004 12:53 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 5:49 pm

Tried to upload some pics this week, were not uploaded because they were 1,09 MB, resolution is 1200-wide.

Don't bother the change them, they got in at 'the other site' ...
 
teopilot
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:41 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:13 pm

Quoting INNflight (Reply 8):
I am always using "save for web" for uploads, but always kept the highest quality setting to keep the screeners happy.

I use the " save as..." tool...
What are the differences between the "save as..." and the "save for web"?
 
whisperjet
Crew
Posts: 503
Joined: Mon Nov 12, 2007 6:27 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:28 pm

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.
Nobody is perfect - not even a perfect fool.
 
teopilot
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Jul 19, 2010 6:41 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:42 pm

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
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 7:51 pm

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.
 
User avatar
jid
Posts: 889
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:37 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 8:09 pm

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
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 10:03 pm

Quoting RonS (Reply 13):
However, what I have the bigger issue with is the new restriction on including the Pixel size in the comments of the photo.

Have I missed something Ronny? If I'm reading this right are we not allowed to remark on the pixel size of our images anymore? What?!
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
 
RonS
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:26 pm

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
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sun Mar 06, 2011 11:42 pm

Quoting RonS (Reply 16):

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.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
tarantulalv
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed May 21, 2008 4:49 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 12:56 am

Quoting spencer (Reply 15):

Hi Peter you are correct. Unfortunately this is no longer permitted.

[Edited 2011-03-06 16:58:45]
 
User avatar
cpd
Posts: 4549
Joined: Sat Jun 28, 2008 4:46 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:18 am

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.

[Edited 2011-03-06 17:37:08]

[Edited 2011-03-06 18:19:31]
 
RonS
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:39 am

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
Posts: 2154
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:58 am

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.

Quoting tarantulalv (Reply 18):
Unfortunately this is no longer permitted.

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.
Slower traffic, keep right
 
User avatar
Moose135
Posts: 2555
Joined: Mon Oct 04, 2004 11:27 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:28 am

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.
KC-135 - Passing gas and taking names!
 
GPHOTO
Posts: 799
Joined: Sun Aug 01, 2004 11:44 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 7:15 am

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!

Best regards,

Jim
Head Database Editor
Erm, is this thing on?
 
dendrobatid
Posts: 1639
Joined: Sat Nov 06, 2004 3:40 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 9:03 am

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
 
RonS
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 1:00 pm

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17):
I've put camera data in some of my comments (i.e. shutter speed, ISO, F-stop). That could easily be considered hit-seeking.

Good question, that's what I'm getting at. If it starts with pixel size, where does it stop?

Quoting vikkyvik (Reply 17):
if that's exactly what viewers are looking for.

Exactly, why take that away from a viewer if that's what they are searching for / looking for?

Quoting gphoto (Reply 23):
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!

No problem Jim, most all corrections I've done were taken care of in less than 24 hours, so after no response I started asking questions. If we would have gotten this new policy out to the contributors, I wouldn't have had to sent a correction. In a perfect world we would even have a constructive debate about these types of things  
Quoting moose135 (Reply 22):
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.

Good morning Moose. I respectfully disagree with you, and I will give you a personal example. When I have an image that I can upload greater than 1200px it doesn't happen from an arbitrary decision when I upload. It started before I even decided to take the photo. I waited for the right light, the right aircraft, the right situation. I've gotten the exposure spot on, and not through luck but trial / error and careful tweaking. My DoF is how I want it, I'm using the lowest ISO possible to achieve just the right shutter speed. I'm holding my breath, bracing my body and squeezing the shutter with the least amount of pressure so I absolutely have no movement that could impact my shot and I have the sharpest shot I am possible of taking. I'm also zoomed in on the aircraft so I'm not cropping the image, just levelling and trimming. All these factors go into taking a premuim shot that I then wish to edit FOR 1500px, for example. To get to the final product of a larger pixel image that passes the rigourous and high standards at our beloved site, you need to do everything right before the shot was taken, while taking the shot, and then editing the shot.

After doing all this, and taking my little   10MP 3,888px original, and having something accepted on Anet at 1500px, I would simply like the right to add that in the comments of MY photo. I'm not saying everyone has to, I really don't care. Why do people care if I put it in then?

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 24):
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

That is one point of it Mick. It's difficult to get a 1024x shot in, a 1500px is a major achievement for me, and I would like to "advsertise" it in my comments? I also like to "advertise" a slow shutter handheld shot. I'm sincerely wondering if you will be trying to remove that next. I'm also still stoked over my ISO1250 shot that I have accepted in the database, are you going to remove that comment since I was advertising the fact? I'm equally excited about my 1500px shot that the comment was removed on.

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 24):
but the inclusion of the 1600 comment in itself serves to encourage more people to try to submit them at that size.

I am obviously not not privy to the numbers on that Mick. But you're probably correct to some degree, but those people (I was one of them when I was new) will realize the error of their ways, read the rejection guide, seek advice, then start at 1024px. I'm a better editor for it and you get less rejections now because of the errors I've made in that department as a rookie. Now I know what shots are worth a 1024x, 1200px and 1600px edits. Furthermore, it has encouraged me to try to submit them at that larger size now that I have a small clue about taking photos and editing.

I will go one step farther, it motivates that heck out of me to see some of the well known photogs here with a shot that says 1600px in the comments. I look at the photo, say to myself, how the heck did they manage that stunning quality at so large a file size? What are they doing right that I'm doing wrong? Then I learn even more, try even harder, I then set a goal and reach it (hopefully). That's exactly what the 1600px comment encourages ME to do. I dare say it "encourages" others to do the same.

But I'm just talking from a photog perspective mostly. What about all those people sitting in an office that rarely see an aircraft in person (the average viewer?) There are many of them searching out large pixel photos. Why? I'm not a mind reader but I think it has something to do with the larger monitors available to many today. It may also be that they know those photos will be of the highest, most stunning quality, and in their busy lives when they can only view a couple of photos a day, they want to see that one that leaves them speachless. Or perhaps they are just searching for something that will fit their monitor for their latest monitor Wallpaper? Having a pixel size comment saves them from emailing us asking us to resize for their desktop wallpaper. They can seek out one that will fit.

My point is, it's a personal viewer preference that viewers obviously like. Now you're taking that away from the viewer that is seeking that out as well. To expect them to right click on the image is a little much, I don't even have time to waste on that.

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 24):
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.

As well you should, I appreciate everyone's efforts in these regards. However, I would caution the last two "irrelevant and hit seeking" Be careful that this is not subjectively carried out, or even instituted for that matter. What is irrelevant to one person, may not be to another. What is deemed "hit seeking" today, pixel size in comments, may extrapolate to other comments as well in the future. Next thing you know we're going to remove the airport name, because that could be seen as hit seeking. That's quite drastic, I admit, but that is pandora's box that you've opened by saying a pixel size in the comments is hit seeking, where does it end?

Quoting dendrobatid (Reply 24):
We have indeed been removing size comments for quite some time now

I would say stop using your valuable time on removing size comments. It won't end there. Less "control" will add more diversity and better shots. Searching around for things to delete because you think they're hit seeking seems excessive. I'm of the "to each their own" type of mentality. As long as I'm not being offensive, I would rather not have to be told what is in my comments and certainly not have them deleted without an explanation.

Is the goal here to get everyone on the same playing field or something? So the Cessna at an airstrip will get the same views as an A380 in Paris? Is that the underlying theme or am I looking into this too much? Because that kind of thinking breeds mediorcity. Anet has one of most incredible collection of photos available online, and it shows in the images themselves AND the views. Are we building in limitations now to elimate comments that may contribute to those views? Are we removing the incentive to upload those stunning 1600px photos now? Those very photos that push me to become a better photog, take a better shot, and to learn to edit better?

Respectfully,

Ron

[Edited 2011-03-07 05:06:05]

[Edited 2011-03-07 05:13:14]
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
 
User avatar
jid
Posts: 889
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:37 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 07, 2011 3:54 pm

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 that is 1600px as it is harder to get the quality at that size as stated. For me it is just unnecessary and pointless sensorship.

Jid
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Tue Mar 08, 2011 4:30 pm

The removal of photo size comments has nothing to do with censorship. While we enjoy providing our customers (the photographers) a place to express their thoughts, it has, like many things in life, been ruined by a few people. A comment like [1600px] is fine, "1600 pixels wide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is not. One is a useful comment, the other is the online equivalent of driving a monster truck. I leave it up to the reader to distinguish between the two.

We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to reply to this thread, obviously this is an important issue. We will have an announcement in the next day or so on a permanent solution.

Thanks
 
User avatar
jid
Posts: 889
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 2004 7:37 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Tue Mar 08, 2011 6:56 pm

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 penalized by the actions of a few. BTW I would not consider as a Photographer as one of the sites customers, rather as one of the sites suppliers, your customers are the viewers and the people that 'click' on the adverts and provide DM with revenue and keep those servers running 
G7EPN is back after 15 years! Operating all Bands 80mtrs -> 70cms QRZ DX
 
EliaLechner
Posts: 18
Joined: Thu Oct 18, 2007 9:44 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:25 pm

Quoting RonS (Reply 25):

/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 get brilliant shots rejected for minor issues. On the other side you have all these blue-sky-shots which (technically) aren't perfect either.
Sadly it looks like A.net takes quantity over quality...
I mean you spend hours of preparing, taking and editing a shot and in the end - after long days of waiting - it get's rejected because it there are 5 pixels more on one side of the aircraft. Cmon...
Also keep in mind that not everyone has an airport right outside the door.

In the end I shouldn't care anyway... I don't upload here anymore. There are other sites where your work is appreciated and not get frazzled.
(Call it whining, rantin, self-expression whatever... I don't care... lol)

With that said, nice evening everyone...  

Cheers,
Elia
 
unattendedbag
Posts: 2154
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 10:35 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Tue Mar 08, 2011 8:26 pm

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 27):
A comment like [1600px] is fine, "1600 pixels wide!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" is not.

Then I would suggest rejecting the photo on the basis of the disallowed remark. I would suggest not approving the "Correct Information" remark change based on the disallowed remark.

While the addition of "1600 pixels" remark adds nothing to the actual picture and it does induce a click from many people on this site, the mere addition of the remark is harmless and does no disservice to anyone on the site.

I would rather see remarks that are not current to the picture taken be removed. i.e. a picture of a Northwest Airlines 747 from 2004 with the remark "now in Delta paint".
Slower traffic, keep right
 
Psych
Posts: 2944
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 1:17 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:15 pm

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 27):
We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to reply to this thread, obviously this is an important issue. We will have an announcement in the next day or so on a permanent solution.

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)logical conclusion you could say that we shouldn't upload an image because doing so it definitely designed to try to encourage people to click on our photo   . Crew need to be seen to be adopting a measured approach to 'editing' what photographers offer with their uploads. Sometimes comments which include '....if you look closely ...........' can be very informative - or are they designed simply to make people go bigger than the thumbnail? Each case need to be looked at on its own merits.

Take it easy.

Paul
 
spencer
Posts: 1518
Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2004 8:30 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Tue Mar 08, 2011 10:37 pm

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, and now there's a COA B764 in top spot on the home page, 7000+ hits, why? I love this forum!!
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
 
RonS
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Tue Mar 08, 2011 11:35 pm

Quoting Jid (Reply 28):
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 penalized by the actions of a few.

Exactly, also put it in the Rejection Guide, a short blurb and the offenders won't have a leg to stand on.

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 27):
We appreciate everyone who has taken the time to reply to this thread, obviously this is an important issue. We will have an announcement in the next day or so on a permanent solution.

And I appreciate everyone in the Crew who has taken the time to respond to this, as well as listen to the arguments against removing the pixel width from comments. Thank you for looking into it, I'm eager to hear the permanent solution.

Ron
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
 
locsta
Posts: 288
Joined: Fri Sep 08, 2006 9:53 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Wed Mar 09, 2011 4:00 am

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 if you click on it, but if I want to do a unique search for photos of 1600px dimensions only how would that be acomplished if it is not written in the comment?
Missed 4 chasing 1
 
Geezer
Posts: 1413
Joined: Wed Aug 18, 2010 4:37 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Thu Mar 10, 2011 4:09 am

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 by the photographers, I would like to make a few comments about the comments:

I have been "interested in" and "curious about" airplanes for probably much longer than most of the photographers taking the photos on A.net have been "alive", much less taking pictures; I have also been interested in photography for a very long time; because of this, when I take the time to sit down and spend two, three, or even four hours looking at photographs of airplanes, my interest doesn't just stop with looking at the image; I'm curious......I want to know, "how did he do this"? Shutter speed ? lens / camera used ? vantage point ? So what I'm constantly fussing about, I wish MORE photographers would include more comments, particularly with pertinent info as to "what's happening in the situation !" ( It all depends on what kind of photograph it is of course.)
( The "pixel info" has never been an issue for me );

Then.........probably unlike a lot of people..........I tend to spend a LOT of time reading all of the comments made by the people viewing the photos. ( Which leads me to my single biggest "opinion" ) I'm simply incredulous at many of the comments made, and the fact that they were even allowed to appear. I realize the people looking at the photos on A.net speak about 500 different languages, so I "allow" for that; but some of the bizarre stuff I see in the "viewer comments" is really..........................( can't even think of a suitable word to describe it )

Getting back to photographer comments; 9/10's of getting any "dramatic", or "dynamic" photo is being in the right place with the camera, to get the shot; For example, when I see a fantastic "A2A" of say, looking down on a F-22A Raptor, I'm thinking, "the guy wasn't in a Cessna, etc...........he's probably either A. a "Boomer", or B. he's another "Raptor Stick" ! These are the things I like to know about !

Every now & then, I see an especially "exciting or dramatic" shot; sometimes I even drop the photographer an email and tell him I think it's a "killer shot"; many have emailed me back and thanked me. ( I have heard from some "cream of the crop" guys out there, many that I'm amazed we can even communicate in English. )

So the pixel thing isn't one of my "problems".

I must admit one thing........I see a few photos on A.net that make me wonder why they were ever accepted; what do I do ? Nothing; I just "move on" to the next photo ! When I see one I especially like, I give it a comment; I try to make my comments "interesting, positive" etc. Never negative; if my opinion is negative......just move on !

If anyone has taken the trouble to read all this, ...............Thanks for listening !

Charley
Stupidity: Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result; Albert Einstein
 
User avatar
clickhappy
Posts: 9042
Joined: Thu Sep 13, 2001 12:10 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Fri Mar 11, 2011 6:43 pm

Update - We have decided to disallow any comments relating to file size in the Photographer Remarks section. The following addition has been added to the Rejection Guide:

High resolution images show more flaws than low resolution images. We therefore advise everyone to upload images at 1024 pixels wide. Uploading higher resolutions (with a maximum of 1600 pixels wide) should only be done with very high quality images and sufficient editing experience. If you choose to upload your photo(s) at a larger size, please refrain from commenting about the size in the Remarks field. Such comments, if added, will be removed during the screening process.

Thank you for your support in this matter.
 
McG1967
Posts: 480
Joined: Wed Apr 05, 2006 2:36 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:01 pm

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 process, the one that you click I have read and understood the above.

With regards to searching for images higher than 1024 px, maybe if there was a category for images larged than 1024 px wide that could be selected.

Mark
 
vikkyvik
Posts: 11764
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2003 1:58 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Fri Mar 11, 2011 8:20 pm

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 36):

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 used here. Again, as Ron said, it's not much of a stretch to then ban shutter speeds, apertures, etc.

Quoting moose135 (Reply 22):
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.

I disagree here. Image sizing is part of the editing process, and therefore very much a part of how the final image displayed here is created. As mentioned many times, sizing to 1200 or 1024 can make flaws in the image much less noticeable. On the other hand, submitting at 1400 or 1600 can make many more details visible. So I'm really not sure how, for the purposes of A.net, the final image size isn't part of the image creation process.

With that said, obviously you don't need the comment to find out the size of the image. But I don't see how it hurts, especially for search functionality.

Quoting McG1967 (Reply 37):
With regards to searching for images higher than 1024 px, maybe if there was a category for images larged than 1024 px wide that could be selected.

Completely agree - I actually thought about that a couple days ago. Maybe along with the other searchable items, you could have a few choices that say, for example, "all sizes", "1200+", "1400+", "1600" or something like that.
I'm watching Jeopardy. The category is worst Madonna songs. "This one from 1987 is terrible".
 
RonS
Posts: 726
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2009 6:22 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Sat Mar 12, 2011 2:12 am

Quoting clickhappy (Reply 36):
Update - We have decided to disallow any comments relating to file size in the Photographer Remarks

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 his work cut out for him deleting all the comments from the thousands of photos that contain comments relating to pixel size, I know mines not going to be the only one  

When I first started here at Anet, I was shocked by those negative people that had bad things to say about Anet, and said to myself I never wanted to be one of them, I wanted to always remain positive about this place. I'll just leave it at this, the way you guys sometimes go about things makes it very hard to maintain that positive outlook.

Enjoy the weekend, have fun deleting comments...I'll be out shooting   
All opinions expressed by me are my own opinions & do not represent the opinions in any way of my employers.
 
chris78cpr
Posts: 2733
Joined: Tue Feb 03, 2004 7:44 am

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 14, 2011 10:52 am

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/restriction during upload that only allows it.
5D2/7D/1D2(soon to be a 1Dx) 17-40L/24-105L/70-200F2.8L/100-400L/24F1.4LII/50F1.2L/85F1.2LII
 
andrew50
Posts: 143
Joined: Mon Jun 13, 2005 9:16 pm

RE: A Discussion About Filesize

Mon Mar 14, 2011 12:12 pm

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 whose photos are just fantastic to view at the larger sizes, and this rule would seem to punish them. I think a rule like this would really hurt the site more than help. I understand the theory behind it, with people who are uploading at large sizes and the quality is just not there, which clogs up the queue. Hopefully a solution can be worked out. As for putting pixel size in the comments section, as long as it just states the size, and only that, it does not bother me, but really do not see the need for it, I mean when you click on the photo you can pretty much tell what size it is. Just my two cents.
Andrew

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 9 guests