User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: photo comp image sizes

  1. #1
    Member
    Join Date
    06 Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    photo comp image sizes

    I don't have a whole lot of room to talk since it's been quite a while since I entered on of the AP comps, but I have always wondered about the choice of image size by some. When I say image size I don't mean the crop, but the actual pixel dimensions. What makes someone choose to use a small image size say anything below 800-600? Personally I would think you would want to use the largest size allowable so people can really see the finer details of the picture. Perhaps that's exactly why some choose to submit small pictures - to hide a slightly soft focus or something of the like. Would there be anything said for having a minimum size for comps, as well as a max?

  2. #2
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,647
    Mentioned
    10 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    It is entirely up to each member. we set limits (250kb and 1024 pixels on the longest side), then it is up to entrants what they enter. Personally, I agree that if an entry is very small, it limits its chances of doing well, but I don't think adding more restrictions/rules is a solution.
    "It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro

    Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
    Nikon, etc!

    RICK
    My Photography

  3. #3
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    06 Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Fair enough, more rules equals less freedom. As you say though, a smaller image could/would limit its chances of being received well. I'm just curious what the thought process behind submitting a smaller image is. That is if there is a particular reason.

  4. #4
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,836
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I'll often use a smaller image size so that the image can be seen without having to scroll down the screen. (never smaller than about 800 on longest side)
    Also helps to lower the MBs if using "primitive" software!
    Last edited by Mark L; 11-06-2012 at 8:21pm.

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Addict
    Join Date
    07 May 2010
    Location
    Bruthen, East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,652
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I always use 900x for normal images, and 1024x for panoramics. But for some I think they make them smaller to keep a better resolution for the 250kb
    Geoff
    Honesty is best policy.
    CC is always welcome
    Nikon D3000 ... Nikon D90... Nikon D700 Various lenses, Home studio equipment and all the associated stuff
    Flickr

  6. #6
    Member
    Threadstarter

    Join Date
    06 Dec 2009
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    135
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by Mark L View Post
    I'll often use a smaller image size so that the image can be seen without having to scroll down the screen. (never smaller than about 800 on longest side)
    Also helps to lower the MBs if using "primitive" software!
    Very good point about sizing the picture so that the average user doesn't have to scroll through a picture to see the entire image. It's been a long time since I've done any web stuff. Back in the day 800x600 was the average screen resolution used. I would like to think that by now it's at least 1024x790. That would make a portrait image just fit at 600x800.

    You also mention PP software limitations. I've not really used anything less than PS or LR so I easily forget about these things. One thing I would imagine people forget about when saving and image for the web is that anything greater than 96dpi is a waste as most computer graphics cards can't resolve better than that. Taking an image 200-300dpi out of camera down to 96dpi makes a HUGE difference in file size.

    It's good to hear other peoples point of view on this. Thank you all for your comments!

  7. #7
    Ausphotography irregular Mark L's Avatar
    Join Date
    21 Nov 2010
    Location
    magical Mudgee
    Posts
    18,836
    Mentioned
    26 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by davros View Post
    One thing I would imagine people forget about when saving and image for the web is that anything greater than 96dpi is a waste as most computer graphics cards can't resolve better than that. Taking an image 200-300dpi out of camera down to 96dpi makes a HUGE difference in file size.
    I've tried this before, and just tested again, and starting with RAW then convert and save as jpeg, the file size doesn't change when dpi is changed. (using DPP)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •