Images and Image size per thread
  • Should the data size of threads be increased?

    Poll ended at Tue May 01, 2012 5:19 pm

     
    Total votes: 0
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    Images and Image size per thread

    by Busiboy » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:19 pm

    The rules for the forum were devised back when Dial Up users were considered for the image size and qty of images per thread.

    There are schools of thought for both sides as to more or less but I am keen to hear what the members have to say on the subject.

    IMHO the 200kb rule should stay, for a 1000 sized image on the longest size there isn't any visible change in quality between a 200ish and a 500ish and higher kb image.

    If the majority wish the forum owner to reconsider, I'll ask him :D

    Otherwise, number of images per thread.

    Most sections here are limited to 4 images per thread and the Photo Essay was 15 per thread or 10 per page generally for the 365 and ongoing personal challenge threads.

    Do the members wish these to be increased? I've not been ruling it with an Iron fist, but where both criteria are gone over I tend to do something.

    Personally I believe in limiting the number of images per thread, not because I like to, but because it makes the poster think about the images posted and stops spamming of many many images.

    Additionally there are a new wave of users nowadays that like to participate, of which I'm one.

    Mobile users, Tablets, phones etc, they obviously aren't for serious colour critique, but they are a way that many members would participate large amounts of images blow data plans and slow the process down considerably.

    Again, its not all about what I want, but I am raising a legitimate reason for keeping the data size of threads under control.

    Thoughts opinions?
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • User avatar
    LOZ
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2888
    Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:48 am
    Contact:

    by LOZ » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:26 pm

    Mobile users, Tablets, phones etc, they obviously aren't for serious colour critique


    So you haven't got a NEW iPad runs rings around 95% of what out there :wink:
    Calm down its not real life its a internet forum:)
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    by Busiboy » Tue Apr 17, 2012 5:43 pm

    LOZ wrote:Mobile users, Tablets, phones etc, they obviously aren't for serious colour critique


    So you haven't got a NEW iPad runs rings around 95% of what out there :wink:


    I've got the iPad 2 which I find pretty damn good, but there is plenty of other types out there from chinese knock offs to the illustrious iPad 3, so a sweeping generalisation charge is to be leveled against me.

    Any other thoughts on the above Loz?
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • beeb
    Golden Cow
    Golden Cow
    Posts: 1815
    Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:44 pm
    Contact:

    by beeb » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:35 pm

    I like the limited number of images, makes me think more about the rubbish I post.

    I would like a slightly larger data size, mainly to allow for a slightly larger image size - I only view the forum on PC, so to me I'd prefer a little extra image size to be able to view things a little more easily. Some 'legal' images look quite small even on the 17" LCD's at work

    I'd suggest roughly something like maximum length on longest side 800, max 500KB or so...

    (I'm on mobile broadband at home, so data usage is also a big concern for me as there just isn't large data allowances available...)
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    by Busiboy » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:52 pm

    Beeb,

    We are currently at 1000 on the longest side, only time I battle keeping it under 200 ish kb is when it's 1000x1000
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • User avatar
    LOZ
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2888
    Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:48 am
    Contact:

    by LOZ » Tue Apr 17, 2012 6:58 pm

    I just wounder how many members don't post because of restrictions ?
    My feelings is with the amount of traffic on the forum at present why not just open it up to any thing goes for a few weeks and see what happens ?
    Calm down its not real life its a internet forum:)
  • W G
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 2125
    Joined: Wed Jul 22, 2009 10:25 am
    Location: Sydney
    Contact:

    by W G » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:04 pm

    How much is enough ..... and more importantly, how much is too much?

    The present arrangements are adequate I feel. Surely the limiter on image quality is the internet itself so why crave more.

    I am of the school initiated by Phil Davis of BTZS fame who likened the internet showing of masses of pictures to the potty-training of 2 year olds where they have to bring the potty to mummy and daddy to proudly show their creation.

    With that as the aim, there ain't a whole lotta need for much more than what we've got.

    Cheers,
    Walter Glover

    "Photography was not a bastard left by science on the doorstep of art, but a legitimate child of the Western pictorial tradition." —Robert Galassi
  • beeb
    Golden Cow
    Golden Cow
    Posts: 1815
    Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 8:44 pm
    Contact:

    by beeb » Tue Apr 17, 2012 7:29 pm

    Busiboy wrote:Beeb,

    We are currently at 1000 on the longest side, only time I battle keeping it under 200 ish kb is when it's 1000x1000


    Hmm... a lot of the old 900x600 jpeg's I edited ages back are up around 350-400KB. I tend to save everything as a Level 12 jpeg though...
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    by Busiboy » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:14 pm

    beeb wrote:
    Busiboy wrote:Beeb,

    We are currently at 1000 on the longest side, only time I battle keeping it under 200 ish kb is when it's 1000x1000


    Hmm... a lot of the old 900x600 jpeg's I edited ages back are up around 350-400KB. I tend to save everything as a Level 12 jpeg though...


    Level 7-8 should not give much difference once on the net.
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • User avatar
    heartyfisher
    Photojournalist
    Photojournalist
    Posts: 3036
    Joined: Sun Mar 18, 2007 12:29 am
    Location: Sydney, NSW
    Contact:

    by heartyfisher » Tue Apr 17, 2012 9:44 pm

    I am on mobile broadband for the foreseeable future... current limits on file sizes and number of pictures are good for me.

    Yeah I should show more of my "creations" :wink: , been a bit slack.. what with the move to Melbourne, hook turns and new job..
    Moments of Light : D7K D610 18-200 150 12-24 24-70 70-200 + C&C very welcome!
    Being a photographer is a lot like being a Christian: Some people look at you funny but do not see the amazing beauty all around them - heartyfisher.
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    by Busiboy » Thu Apr 26, 2012 11:35 am

    bump,

    Any more thoughts and votes on the issue?
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • Dunnart
    Member
    Member
    Posts: 183
    Joined: Sun Nov 30, 2008 8:29 pm
    Location: Bathurst
    Contact:

    by Dunnart » Thu Apr 26, 2012 8:36 pm

    I'm using Aperture and I can't set a maximum kb size (i.e. 200kb). I can set my export setting to pixel length on the longest side. So my preference would be to other set a higher kb limit (e.g. 400kb) or get rid of it altogether but set a max side length e.g. 1024. Of course, I could be missing something simple in Aperture.

    edit. I think 4 photos per post is ok.
    cheers

    Steve
  • gerry
    Cadet
    Cadet
    Posts: 301
    Joined: Tue Apr 28, 2009 10:31 am
    Location: Newtown, Sydney
    Contact:

    by gerry » Thu Apr 26, 2012 9:50 pm

    W G wrote:I am of the school initiated by Phil Davis of BTZS fame who likened the internet showing of masses of pictures to the potty-training of 2 year olds where they have to bring the potty to mummy and daddy to proudly show their creation.

    With that as the aim, there ain't a whole lotta need for much more than what we've got.

    Cheers,


    then i vote for a reduction. 2 images per thread. Really, if you want geniune critique any more than a couple of images is really just postign for the sake of sharing to the world - which in my books is not actually sharing but taking a withdrawal from a community.

    I say there shoudl be encouragement to engage and critique rather than just post images - i personally find this site has just become a duplication dumping ground for peoples images to gain a few extra views and comments. I look at a number of forums and shits me to tears to see the same shit on each one - even if it is good shit.
    just coz its the internet does not mean you can act like a dick :)
  • User avatar
    Busiboy
    Site Admin
    Site Admin
    Posts: 3572
    Joined: Thu Apr 10, 2008 9:10 pm
    Location: SE Sydney
    Contact:

    by Busiboy » Mon Apr 30, 2012 11:13 am

    Some interesting ideas, a great discussion.

    I'm of the school less is more, we have the photo essay section for those who want more.

    I think 4 is a decent number, it allows a couple of different views of the same shoot or subject or whatever to be shown.

    I personally try to post 3 at a time, if I cant do it right in 3 I've wasted my day anyhow.

    I agree with Gerry though, I'm not a fan of the dumping of images and not commenting on others, those members I've found generally start getting a low response to their works and often move on.

    I'm not sure what we can do to 'fix' this issue though, I think it sort of looks after itself.
    *PPOK*
    C&C always welcome

    Scott
  • User avatar
    JazzXP
    Cadet
    Cadet
    Posts: 964
    Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 3:48 pm
    Location: Melbourne
    Contact:

    by JazzXP » Mon Apr 30, 2012 2:38 pm

    I'm voting other. 4-5, but a larger size, up to 500kb. The majority are on broadband now.
    Nikon D5000 | Nikkor 18-55 | Nikkor 55-200 | Nikkor 50 f/1.4 | Tokina 12-24 f/4 | OLD Tamron 300mm (CT-300) | Nikkor 70-200 f/2.8 VRII
    General Photography
    Glamour Photography

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest