Locked 0 posts Page 1 of 1
Image Size
  • Walter Glover

    Image Size

    by Walter Glover » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:28 am

    Again we see this morning that pictures are deleted due to file size. It is really bloody annoying to say the least.

    I fully understand and agree with the maximum dimensions ruling because excessively large image dimensions can distort the frame of the board. But the nonsense about file size is just that — A NONSENSE.

    Surely what is called for is a POLL of the membership to determine just how many do not have access to broadband. If there are less than some fair arbitrary number (to be decided but I would suggest 5 or 10) that do not have broadband access due to regional connection issues then fair enough. But as it stands it appears something of an oligarchy and the many are being burdened or penalised for the sake of a miniscule minority.

    I say if they won't shell out for broadband then stuff 'em; they can't be all that interested.
  • avkomp

    by avkomp » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:40 am

    the images were deleted because they were around 1MB each

    if every post had that, with 4 images

    the forum would grind to a halt,
    broadband or not simple as that

    we have rules.



    we have moderators to enforce those rules.

    anyone who is unhappy with that,
    well,
    we are happy to refund their membership fees or
    they can chose not to be here
  • User avatar
    Oneputt
    Moderator
    Moderator
    Posts: 4069
    Joined: Sun Jul 30, 2006 6:47 pm
    Location: Sitting around a campfire somewhere
    Contact:

    by Oneputt » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:41 am

    Walter in my opinion that would be extremely unfair. Would you believe that there are some areas without access?

    What I find tedious is that some members do not bother reading the rules, it is not a big ask for them to do so and comply. If it is good enough for the vast majority of members to comply why not all?
    "The good thing about meditation, is that it makes doing nothing respectable." **PPOK**

    www.oneputtphotographics.com
    http://oneputt.redbubble.com/
  • Walter Glover

    by Walter Glover » Fri Jan 16, 2009 8:50 am

    Oneputt wrote:Walter in my opinion that would be extremely unfair. Would you believe that there are some areas without access?


    The world is unfair. I have a mate that was relocated to Dubbo and I know that he does not have broadband because there are too few accounts available. What a primitive bloody backwater of the universe we live. Paul Keating was right.

    Steve,

    Excellent recitation of SirT there. Shows some promise.
  • User avatar
    Bodak
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2340
    Joined: Mon Aug 07, 2006 9:36 pm
    Location: Somerville Victoria
    Contact:

    Re: Image Size

    by Bodak » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:44 am

    Walter Glover wrote:A
    I say if they won't shell out for broadband then stuff 'em; they can't be all that interested.
    Edit: Comments removed. Stephen
    Last edited by Bodak on Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
    Be at peace. - Stephen.
    Web Site
    PPOK
  • avkomp

    by avkomp » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:45 am

    lets not become personal folks
  • User avatar
    bindiblue
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2874
    Joined: Fri Aug 04, 2006 10:23 am
    Location: Caboolture QLD
    Contact:

    by bindiblue » Fri Jan 16, 2009 9:57 am

    what about areas that CANNOT get broadband and no fault of there own, now be nice, we are suppose to be adults here,
    Suzanne
    PPOK

    http://bindiblue.blogspot.com/

    D200, D300 & few lens's
  • User avatar
    Sir Tristram
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 4350
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:04 pm
    Location: Dundas - NSW
    Contact:

    by Sir Tristram » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:16 am

    But the nonsense about file size is just that — A NONSENSE


    I am not a photoshop expert by any means and I resize every jpg I have to under 200kb limit and have done easily for over a year. If it was a complicated thing to do I could understand the argument, but it simply isnt hard to do nor time consuming so why is it a nonsense?

    The limit will be staying at 200kb until there is a reason to increase it.

    JC
    John C.
    **PPOK**
  • User avatar
    trac44
    Cadet
    Cadet
    Posts: 834
    Joined: Fri Jan 25, 2008 3:16 pm
    Location: Tea Gardens
    Contact:

    Re: Image Size

    by trac44 » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:35 am

    Walter Glover wrote:I say if they won't shell out for broadband then stuff 'em; they can't be all that interested.

    It's not a matter of "shelling out". I would be happy to; if the service were available. :?
    Of course I'm interested; not sure if I want to be stuffed? :)
    Cheers
    Norm
    PPOK - images OK
  • User avatar
    Big Red
    Cadet
    Cadet
    Posts: 792
    Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2009 7:57 pm
    Location: Gold Coast
    Contact:

    by Big Red » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:51 am

    the powertoys resizer does a great job ... one of the best i found for this sort of thing.

    right click on your pic
    select 800 size from drop down menu
    click and its done



    heres a link to the page with the image resizer on it

    http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/down ... rtoys.mspx
  • nito
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2046
    Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:09 am
    Contact:

    by nito » Fri Jan 16, 2009 10:57 am

    Well I think that the forum rules should encourage posting of images and having two restrictions is counter productive of this point.

    I would argue that images should either be restricted to either

    1. Pixel dimensions (<800 pixels)

    OR

    2. File size. (<200 kb)

    I disagree with the current line of thinking where there are two requirements when posting an image.

    I think a consensus need to be met with this regards in choosing one or the other for the benefit of non-broadband members.
    Hello what signature is here right now?
  • User avatar
    Sir Tristram
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 4350
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:04 pm
    Location: Dundas - NSW
    Contact:

    by Sir Tristram » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:00 am

    I would argue that images should either be restricted to either

    1. Pixel dimensions (<800 pixels)

    OR

    2. File size. (<200 kb)



    So your happy with a 1.5mb 800 pixel image?
    John C.
    **PPOK**
  • nito
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2046
    Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 9:09 am
    Contact:

    by nito » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:39 am

    Sir Tristram wrote:
    I would argue that images should either be restricted to either

    1. Pixel dimensions (<800 pixels)

    OR

    2. File size. (<200 kb)



    So your happy with a 1.5mb 800 pixel image?


    John, if bandwidth is so important for the readership then just have the one rule. Images must be less than 200 kb. If it ends up being a thumbnail or a pic larger than 800px it doesnt matter.

    The issue is there are two restrictions imposed on images when there should only be one.
    Hello what signature is here right now?
  • User avatar
    Sir Tristram
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 4350
    Joined: Mon Jul 24, 2006 9:04 pm
    Location: Dundas - NSW
    Contact:

    by Sir Tristram » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:43 am

    I have no problems with that either other than it really does wear thin having to manouver your brower window around the place to view the complete image. Not all of us have 1600x1200 monitors.

    So for the majority of members who post here they may on average post say 4 images a month, some more some none. But I don't see the problem with resizing an image to less than 1024 on its longest side and less than 200kb. Your talking about 2mins if that per photo or 8 mins a month to comply with the forum.

    Not a big ask I'd say.

    JC
    John C.
    **PPOK**
  • User avatar
    matt
    Reporter
    Reporter
    Posts: 1165
    Joined: Sat Aug 05, 2006 8:24 pm
    Location: Biloela
    Contact:

    by matt » Fri Jan 16, 2009 11:51 am

    Sir Tristram wrote:I have no problems with that either other than it really does wear thin having to manouver your brower window around the place to view the complete image. Not all of us have 1600x1200 monitors.

    So for the majority of members who post here they may on average post say 4 images a month, some more some none. But I don't see the problem with resizing an image to less than 1024 on its longest side and less than 200kb. Your talking about 2mins if that per photo or 8 mins a month to comply with the forum.

    Not a big ask I'd say.

    JC


    This seems the norm on most other forums as well. Seems perfectly acceptable.

    If your image "needs" to be bigger jsut link to it. Then those that have the ability/want can click and enjoy.

    MATT
Locked 0 posts Page 1 of 1

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests