User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  22
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 38

Thread: AP in 2016 : Image Size increase, KB and Pixel, for forums and comps

  1. #1
    Administrator ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,260
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)

    AP in 2016 : Image Size increase, KB and Pixel, for forums and comps

    Hi all,

    I am considering increasing both the KB and Pixel size allowed on AP from the start of 2016.

    Why wait till then? because our competitions have a set limit of 1024 pixels and 250KB now, and letting the 'playing field' stay level for the Photo of the Year, means every eligible POTY entry is using the same size constraints.

    So it makes sense to consider any changes to pixel/kb size and tie them in with a fresh year of competitions

    I am thinking 1200 pixels and 350KB as the new standard maximum size for images posted to the forums, gallery and competitions. BUT these are flexible and the main thing I am interested to know is what pixel width are the main computer monitors members are using to view the site? Because if most people are using screens with at least 1500 pixels wide, maybe I should be considering 1500pixels. But it is no use doing so if most members are using screens of less than 1500 pixels.

    So now it is up to you, would you like to see image sizes increase to 1200 pixels and 350KB or something else? And what pixel width is your main AP viewing device?
    Last edited by ricktas; 30-10-2015 at 7:45pm.
    "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

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular agb's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Sep 2010
    Location
    Cleveland
    Posts
    819
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Well if it is any help I have a 1920*1080 monitor
    The age of entitlement isn't over, it's just over there where you can't get to it.
    When several possibilities exist, the simplest solution is the best.
    "There are no rules" Bruce Barnbaum, The art of Photography
    Graham


  3. #3
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    15,309
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1920 x 1080, but 1200 is already a sizeable fraction of that.

    I think the proposed size is quite generous.
    CC, Image editing OK.

  4. #4
    Ausphotography Regular
    Join Date
    01 Dec 2011
    Location
    Brisbane
    Posts
    1,615
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    2560x1440 here.

    - - - Updated - - -

    I tend to crop to 1280x960, 1024x768 and 800x600 as my standard sets.

    Cheers

    Dennis

  5. #5
    Lightbender Grant S's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Apr 2014
    Location
    Oakhurst
    Posts
    1,954
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    1650*1080 for me. I crop to 1200 now for most of my shots.

  6. #6
    I like my computer more than my camera farmmax's Avatar
    Join Date
    28 Mar 2010
    Location
    Central West
    Posts
    1,880
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The native resolution of my monitor is 2560 X 1440, but I run it at 1920 X 1080.

    Aren't the screen resolutions viewing the site readily available to you in your statistics?

  7. #7
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,260
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by farmmax View Post
    The native resolution of my monitor is 2560 X 1440, but I run it at 1920 X 1080.

    Aren't the screen resolutions viewing the site readily available to you in your statistics?
    yes they are ,but it also includes mobiles and tablets, so there is such a huge range of screen sizes that I thought asking would let me find out more about what people use, who are interested in such things as pixel and KB size. Also the stats lump everyone together, members and visitors. I want to know what members have and want.

  8. #8
    Fishy bricat's Avatar
    Join Date
    06 Apr 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    767
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    What are the benefits? Bigger picture, more resolution? cheers Brian
    PS 1600x900
    Cheers Brian.

    Canon 7D Kit lenses EFS 18-55 IS EFS 55-250 IS EF28-90 Canon EF 2xll Extender Sigma DG150-500 OS Speedlight 420EX. 580EX

  9. #9
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,260
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by bricat View Post
    What are the benefits? Bigger picture, more resolution? cheers Brian
    PS 1600x900
    both. the result of which is a better image to give CC on or vote on. The less compression needed (jpg is a lossy format), the higher quality the images will appear, less jpg artefacts etc. In the past, image and KB sizes were limited due to the slowness of net connections. Remember waiting for a download on a 56K connection in the 1990's? As our net connections get faster, our monitors get bigger and more resolution, it makes sense to move forward and offer up the choice to use bigger image sizes. Remember these new sizes will be the upper limit. Everyone is free to still use smaller if they want to.

  10. #10
    It's all about the Light!
    Tech Admin
    Kym's Avatar
    Join Date
    15 Jun 2008
    Location
    Modbury, Adelaide
    Posts
    9,639
    Mentioned
    11 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    The gallery is already 1200w x 1024h

    Should we only increase the width?
    regards, Kym Gallery Honest & Direct Constructive Critique Appreciated! ©
    Digital & film, Bits of glass covering 10mm to 500mm, and other stuff



  11. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    04 Oct 2015
    Location
    Northern Rivers
    Posts
    394
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    My main screen is 1920 x 1080.

    Here's some stats from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp on average screen sizes used 'currently'.
    Date Other high 1920x1080 1366x768 1280x1024 1280x800 1024x768 800x600 Lower
    January 2015 32.7% 16% 33% 7% 5% 4% 0.3% 2%
    I understand your consulting the 'main members' but these will change over time (i assume) as will the monitors they are using.
    How often do you review this restriction?
    Should you also give some weight to the hardware of todays 'visitors' as these visitors are potential members of tomorrow?
    And if 33% of visitors can't fit a 1500px picture on their screens then they may not be in a hurry to return.
    Considering all this, I would support 1200 generally and 1500 for panos.

  12. #12
    Arch-Σigmoid Ausphotography Regular ameerat42's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 Sep 2009
    Location
    Nthn Sydney
    Posts
    15,309
    Mentioned
    16 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    If you're a member on AP, there is no gradation in terms of main and otherwise. This is consulting all AP-ers.
    Visitors are people who access the public part of AP - which does not display the pictures in the CC forums - without logging on
    or who are not members. Either way, they could not post a reply.

  13. #13
    Who let the rabble in? Lance B's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Aug 2010
    Location
    Sydney
    Posts
    7,759
    Mentioned
    5 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I am all for using larger sizes to display images, as just about every image looks much better displayed larger as long as it can fit on the screen. There are some superb images posted in the competitions that are hampered by their small size as they lose impact, mostly it is the landscapes that really need to be viewed large to garner full impact. However, even some bird/animal images would benefit from a larger version to look at.

    We probably need a new "Monitor Size Survey" done just to see what people are using.

    Looking at the last survey in 2014:
    http://www.ausphotography.net.au/for...or-Size-Survey

    From those that bothered to respond, we have most people using:
    1920 x 1080 pixels = 34 @ 49%
    2560 x 1440 pixels = 11 @ 15%
    1920 x 1200 = 7 @ 10%
    1920 x 1080 = 7 @ 10%
    iPad = 7 @ 10%

    Not knowing what iPad res is, I can only use the other data and that results in 69 people @ 78% of respondents using larger screens.

    I know there are a few AP members now with Ultra HD screens which have 3840 x 2160 pixel screens, like Steve Axford and I now both have and the current 1024 pixel wide image looks like a postage stamp on my screen, being only about 160mm across and 105mm high. My old screen was a 2560 x 1440 pixel HD screen and even then a 1024 pixel wide image was quite small, being only 682pixels high for a standard 3:2 image. Personally, there is no way to get the full impact of some of the landscape photos posted if they are viewed so small. Sometimes I look at a small landscape image and think think that it is ok, then when I have the option to view so that it fills the screen - or more - that it jumps out and looks brilliant.

    Personally, I think setting a limit on the height is possibly a better way to do things as generally it is the height of the image that is the limiting factor for view on a 16:9 screen when we consider that most of us use 3:2 aspect ratio. In other words, a portrait or landscape set to the screen's height is generally what limits how much it fills the screen as there is plenty of width due to the 16:9 aspect ratio for a standard 3:2 apsect ratio photo - this only becoming an issue for panoramas but you could set a width limit as well of say 1800 pixels seeing as most people have a 1920 wide screen or larger. According to the survey, most people's screens are at least 1080 pixels high, so allowing for menu bars etc, a maximum pixel height dimension should be say 1,000 or 950 pixels so it fits between the top and bottom menu bars. Someone would need to check this on their 1080 pixel screen to see which fits best.

  14. #14
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,874
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I would like to see 1600 on the longest side and 600 kb for comp images and around 1200 and 350 kb for critique forums but I don't know how much work it is to implement all that or how much of an impact it will have on hosting charges etc.

    Current monitors used for web viewing here are 1440 x 900.
    Andrew
    Nikon, Fuji, Nikkor, Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and too many other bits and pieces to list.



  15. #15
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,260
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by taztek View Post
    My main screen is 1920 x 1080.

    Here's some stats from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp on average screen sizes used 'currently'.
    Date Other high 1920x1080 1366x768 1280x1024 1280x800 1024x768 800x600 Lower
    January 2015 32.7% 16% 33% 7% 5% 4% 0.3% 2%
    I understand your consulting the 'main members' but these will change over time (i assume) as will the monitors they are using.
    How often do you review this restriction?
    Should you also give some weight to the hardware of todays 'visitors' as these visitors are potential members of tomorrow?
    And if 33% of visitors can't fit a 1500px picture on their screens then they may not be in a hurry to return.
    Considering all this, I would support 1200 generally and 1500 for panos.
    visitors cannot see the CC forums, we had issues in the past with people 'borrowing' members photos for school newspapers and other things. So to better protect our members' copyright, visitors can no longer access them. Yes visitors are important as they do become members, but for things like giving CC and competitions, I want to know what the current members want, as they are the ones making the site what it is.

    This will be only the second time since the site started in 2006 that we have changed the KB and Pixel sizes allowed on the site. In about 2010 we went from 800 pixels max to 1024. And went from 150KB to 250KB.. from my recollection.
    Last edited by ricktas; 31-10-2015 at 11:43am.

  16. #16
    Ausphotography Regular Brian500au's Avatar
    Join Date
    03 May 2010
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    1,067
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    For my own understanding does this only apply to attached photos? What about linked photos? is there a restriction on size there?
    www.kjbphotography.com.au

    1Dx, 5DsR, 200-400 f4L Ext, 100-400 f4.5-5.6L II, 70-300 f4-5.6L IS, 70-200 f2.8L IS II, 24-70 f2.8L II, 16-35 f4 IS, 11-24 f4L, 85 f1.2L II, 500 f4L IS, 300 f2.8 IS, ∑50 f1.4 A


  17. #17
    Moderately Underexposed I @ M's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 May 2007
    Location
    Marlo, Far East Gippsland
    Posts
    4,874
    Mentioned
    3 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    No restrictions on size, either dimensions or bulk when they are linked Kel.
    They are scaled down in dimensions to suit the site format when they display but they are always available at the original linked size when they are "clicked".

  18. #18
    Ausphotography Regular thegrump's Avatar
    Join Date
    29 Jul 2015
    Location
    Greensborough
    Posts
    1,290
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I was not sure how or why this would impact me, so I failed to get involved. But I did ( obviously ) just now have a look see. I still not sure what difference it would make. but just for your info I am running dual screens main screen is 1920 x 1080 and the secondary is 1280 x 1024
    I have been taking photos for 50 years. I am now trying to get into Photography


  19. #19
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,260
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by thegrump View Post
    I was not sure how or why this would impact me, so I failed to get involved. But I did ( obviously ) just now have a look see. I still not sure what difference it would make. but just for your info I am running dual screens main screen is 1920 x 1080 and the secondary is 1280 x 1024
    It would/could impact you in that you can upload larger and higher quality image files, thus people can give even better critique than they do now. One of the things about JPG files is that as you decrease their size (KB) they lose sharpness. So one of the benefits could be that images uploaded at 350KB instead of 250KB could be sharper.

    Also if an image is posted at 500 pixels wide, and then again at 1200 pixels wide, you can see a lot more detail in the 1200pixel wide image, again allowing better critiques.

  20. #20
    Administrator
    Threadstarter
    ricktas's Avatar
    Join Date
    24 Jun 2007
    Location
    Hobart
    Posts
    15,260
    Mentioned
    9 Post(s)
    Tagged
    1 Thread(s)
    Here are two versions of the same photo to give you an example.

    One is 1000 pixels high and 155KB, the other is 600 pixels high as 23kb

    So as you go bigger, the ability to offer or receive better CC, improves. The higher quality photo we allow, the more members get to appreciate the images.
    Attached Images Attached Images

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

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