FTI Posted December 24, 2011 Share #1 Posted December 24, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Being a new member, I don't want to shoot my mouth off and just complain... but is there any chance that the photo posting rules are revised to allow for larger sized photos? I find the current rules quite restrictive. I think I read somewhere that this forum wanted to keep the bandwidth low for mobile users.... Considering that many people have unlimited data services running at 3G (albeit subject to FU principles), does that argument still hold? And catering to would be roamers with mobile phones; is this really necessary? Resizing photos to a miserable 300KB, really takes a lot away from the photos. The pics just don't look as nice. Not saying that this should be anything like dpreview, but being able to review photos in their larger glory really sells the quality of the product and the shot. Just throwing it out there. I'm sure it's a beaten horse topic, so feel free to put me in my spot. I've been editing away my pics tonight, and spent about 30 minutes trying to resize my pics the best possible way without losing too much of the integrity of the picture. Tried cropping out the pic as well to try to make it all work and fit. Gave up, and decided to air my frustrations. Merry Christmas btw to all Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 Hi FTI, Take a look here Restrictive photo posting. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Nick De Marco Posted December 25, 2011 Share #2 Posted December 25, 2011 I agree 100pc The current rules are Luddite and the justification for them flawed I have said so often, as have others, as yet to no avail. For many months I stopped posting altogether here as a result But there are 2 many good people here And I am sure progressband good sense shall soon prevail over these silly rules Happy Xmas all Nick Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted December 25, 2011 Share #3 Posted December 25, 2011 The simple solution is to become a sponsoring member; that will give you 615 Kb, which is usually more than a 960 pixel wide image will produce. However, with proper resizing techniques, the quality of a 300 Kb image is very hard to distinguish from a full quality JPG. Try resizing with the crop tool or three step resizing. And avoid bicubic sharper, for all that Photoshop asserts that it is best for reduction. It is not. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Studio58 Posted December 25, 2011 Share #4 Posted December 25, 2011 I do not find the current conditions restrictive. Having said that I have only posted a few images but they looked fine to me. I only ever think of images online to serve the purpose of conveying the idea of the author... not as a definitive work of art. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
tobey bilek Posted January 1, 2012 Share #5 Posted January 1, 2012 It is band width the site has to furnish,not what you receive. Link to a mural on Smug Mug if you desire . And if bicubic sharper is not best for downsizing, what is ? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 1, 2012 Share #6 Posted January 1, 2012 Lanczos 3 is my personal preference. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 1, 2012 Share #7 Posted January 1, 2012 Advertisement (gone after registration) Lanczos 3 is my personal preference. Interesting. Could you please explain why? Thanks, K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 1, 2012 Share #8 Posted January 1, 2012 The Lanczos algorithm does a good job at preserving fine detail where bicubic tends to create blur. You can make it appear sharper but you cannot recover detail. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
01af Posted January 2, 2012 Share #9 Posted January 2, 2012 ... is there any chance that the photo posting rules are revised to allow for larger sized photos? I find the current rules quite restrictive. [...] Resizing photos to a miserable 300 KB, really takes a lot away from the photos. 300 KB per picture is vastly more than required. In fact, in most cases 40 or 50 KB easily is enough, or max. 100 KB for pictures that include unusual amounts of fine detail. In another photography forum, the size per picture is limited to 150 KB, and the images there don't look any worse than here. Of course, members there are constantly lamenting about the maximum being too small (which it isn't). Have a limit of 150 KB, and people will complain. Have a limit of 300 KB, and people will complain. Have a limit of 600 KB, and people will complain. Have a limit of 1.5 MB, and people will complain. Do you see a pattern here? I hope the forum's limits on pictures won't get expanded anytime soon. In fact, I feel they're pretty generous already—for a single picture on the web, 300 KB is a lot! I don't want to look at pictures wider than 1,000 pixels, and I don't want to download megabytes of data to see them. If you really feel you cannot properly present your photography within the forum limits then you can always upload your pictures elsewhere and then provide a link. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 2, 2012 Share #10 Posted January 2, 2012 I think the question arises from the confusion between resizing and compression. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
delander † Posted January 2, 2012 Share #11 Posted January 2, 2012 I hope the forum's limits on pictures won't get expanded anytime soon. In fact, I feel they're pretty generous already—for a single picture on the web, 300 KB is a lot! I don't want to look at pictures wider than 1,000 pixels, and I don't want to download megabytes of data to see them. If you really feel you cannot properly present your photography within the forum limits then you can always upload your pictures elsewhere and then provide a link. Go and look at GETDPI, you can post images where you like and the size limit is much higher, even for ordinary members. I find myself looking at far more photos there than here. Jeff Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 3, 2012 Share #12 Posted January 3, 2012 Being a new member, I don't want to shoot my mouth off and just complain... but [...] But you did "shoot your mouth off" instead of making a diplomatic inquiry regarding how and why the restrictions are as they are. You made no attempt to understand the conventions or culture of the group. Instead you launched in into criticism. That's just plain rude. I'd say uber-american if I could be certain, but regardless your complaint is simply horribly uninformed or just stupid.'' Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
roguewave Posted January 3, 2012 Share #13 Posted January 3, 2012 The Lanczos algorithm does a good job at preserving fine detail where bicubic tends to create blur. You can make it appear sharper but you cannot recover detail. Michael, is there a particular package that you can recommend? Thanks. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 3, 2012 Share #14 Posted January 3, 2012 On the Mac it would be GraphicConverter; others might chime in about suitable Windows apps. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 3, 2012 Share #15 Posted January 3, 2012 Photo-Freeware.net - BDSizer Download I did not useit myself, as I get perfect results in CS5. http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/216673-nose-wind.html http://www.l-camera-forum.com/leica-forum/nature-wildlife/208400-blue-monkey.html Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
wlaidlaw Posted January 4, 2012 Share #16 Posted January 4, 2012 I have been trying to locate but cannot find at the moment, a comparison I read recently between FastStone Lanczos 3, PhotoZoom S-Spline and PS-CS5 bi-cubic re-sizing. I seem to recall that the conclusion was that CS5 was the best all round performer. Anyone else recall having read this comparison? I have to admit that I use CS5 simply because I have it and find its resizing excellent. I do have Graphic Converter but it's an old version on a G5 Mac. Certainly on a laptop, I don't find the 300KB and 950 pixel limit a big problem and it keeps bandwidth costs down for Andreas. Wilson Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
k-hawinkler Posted January 4, 2012 Share #17 Posted January 4, 2012 While keeping the 300KB limit, I feel for example that some landscape shots with a lot of great detail would benefit from a larger pixel limit. K-H. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
theendlesshouse Posted January 4, 2012 Share #18 Posted January 4, 2012 That's just plain rude. I'd say uber-american if I could be certain, but regardless your complaint is simply horribly uninformed or just stupid.'' Really out of order! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted January 5, 2012 Share #19 Posted January 5, 2012 Really out of order! So put me in your ignore file or ask that I be banned. You do have such choices. Or thicken you skin and stop acting like a victim. Your choice. . Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mjh Posted January 5, 2012 Share #20 Posted January 5, 2012 So put me in your ignore file or ask that I be banned. But by doing that he would deprive himself of priceless contributions such as your attempt at teaching others about being diplomatic … Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.