TP Image sizes : Final vote

[joxby]

There's obviously a reason why the 800 x 800 folk feel so strongly about not moving on from the small size but I can't really figure it out.

There you go again, "moving on", like its some kind of technological advancement adding 200 pixels to a photo is some biblical media leap, "small size"....gimme a break, there's hardly any difference, 1024 is bigger, does that improve my viewing experience significantly, of course not, now think of a good reason, we're all sat here waiting to be convinced that the sole reason the 1024's want 1024 is not Flickr.
I don't use Flickr btw, I buy toilet roll, its more expensive but infinity less painful on my bot.

 

[Robbo]

800!!

 

[Cobra]

800!!

Would you like to be more specific or are you sitting on the fence :shrug:
Both options contain the size "800"

 

[dinners]

There you go again, "moving on", like its some kind of technological advancement adding 200 pixels to a photo is some biblical media leap, "small size"....gimme a break, there's hardly any difference, 1024 is bigger, does that improve my viewing experience significantly, of course not, now think of a good reason, we're all sat here waiting to be convinced that the sole reason the 1024's want 1024 is not Flickr.
I don't use Flickr btw, I buy toilet roll, its more expensive but infinity less painful on my bot.

I'm certaily not claiming 1024 is a technological advancement.

I voted 1024 because that suits me best and that's the point of a poll. If the majority want to go back to 800 then that's the way it should be - being smaller it's also going to 'fit' my viewing so that's fine but I wonder if a lot of the 800 voters issues are more down to settings than image size.

What I said was that I didn't understand why people had problems viewing 1024 as that doesn't seem an issue for me even if using a modest sized laptop.

Not quite sure why you're going on about Flickr (unless this is some kind of anti Flickr user poll) but I'm all for luxury loo roll.

 

[Jelster]

I don't like the 1024, I don't have to scroll horizontally but I just don't like it, its too in my face...irritating.
I could sit further away from the screen but then text would be too small, I like 800 x 800.
Incidentally, I post my photos at 550 x 550, I don't do that because I don't want anyone to see them now do I..
I'd like to be convinced otherwise but the pro 1024's think I'm stupid by dribbling a load of flannel about how 800 is the size of a stamp and 1024 is as good as A2, or that somehow TP is the problem, not moving with the times/everybodys got a 24inch screen nowadays/misc bull.

Why do you have to scroll your screen for the larger images ? Are you only using 1024 x 800 on your display ?

Steve

 

[CT]

And it's fine on the computer I'm using at the moment. But not another iMac, the laptop or the iPad - which is my preferred tool for browsing when not working.

I don't see where there's a problem with the ipad?

 

[Doog]

Given that there's is a fairly even split of opinion but on the other hand the almost certain outcome will be for 800x800, and also given that there is a new thread asking for forum suggestions, could we maybe incorporate a new section where members can post 1024x? landscape for critique and comment? This would go some way to appease those of us who'd like to post large, and others could steer clear if they wish. Maybe it's somewhat devisive but it could be a solution.:shrug: What do you think?

 

[DemiLion]

Can I be really awkward and vote for 900px width so that we can do 900 by 600 easily?

( I just prefer round numbers!)

Given the choice I'd rather have 1024 for detail though.

 

[CT]

Given that there's is a fairly even split of opinion but on the other hand the almost certain outcome will be for 800x800, and also given that there is a new thread asking for forum suggestions, could we maybe incorporate a new section where members can post 1024x? landscape for critique and comment? This would go some way to appease those of us who'd like to post large, and others could steer clear if they wish. Maybe it's somewhat devisive but it could be a solution.:shrug: What do you think?

That's nice then - stuff the rest of us but it's OK for landscapes.

Seriously, I don't use the lappy often and I'm not sure what res I run it at, but it's a lot more than 1024X768. The whole objection to 1024X800 seems to be the horizontal scrolling issue, but who runs a screen at 1024X768 these days - and why FFS? Scrolling around some of the very large images people have posted is a PITA I'm the first to admit, but to use scrolling as a serious objection to this change seems pretty lame to me.

 

[dlh]

Seriously, I don't use the lappy often and I'm not sure what res I run it at, but it's a lot more than 1024X768. The whole objection to 1024X800 seems to be the horizontal scrolling issue, but who runs a screen at 1024X768 these days - and why FFS? Scrolling around some of the very large images people have posted is a PITA I'm the first to admit, but to use scrolling as a serious objection to this change seems pretty lame to me.

Eloquently put

 

[Robbo]

PITA?

 

[Dogfish_magnet]

I don't like the 1024, I don't have to scroll horizontally but I just don't like it, its too in my face...irritating.
I could sit further away from the screen but then text would be too small, I like 800 x 800.
Incidentally, I post my photos at 550 x 550, I don't do that because I don't want anyone to see them now do I..
I'd like to be convinced otherwise but the pro 1024's think I'm stupid by dribbling a load of flannel about how 800 is the size of a stamp and 1024 is as good as A2, or that somehow TP is the problem, not moving with the times/everybodys got a 24inch screen nowadays/misc bull.

And you've a total of 5 ish threads you have started in the photo crit section - i can understand proples point of view who need to scroll but 'its too in my face ' WTF

 

[MScotts]

There you go again, "moving on", like its some kind of technological advancement adding 200 pixels to a photo is some biblical media leap, "small size"....gimme a break, there's hardly any difference, 1024 is bigger, does that improve my viewing experience significantly, of course not, now think of a good reason, we're all sat here waiting to be convinced that the sole reason the 1024's want 1024 is not Flickr.
I don't use Flickr btw, I buy toilet roll, its more expensive but infinity less painful on my bot.

Ever thought of entering the diplomatic corps...?

As for the Flickr segment of your 'comments', where did you get such solid evedence to support this fact, and who else is in on this (refers to the the ''we're all sat....'' part).

I think there's merit in having 1024px retained in some form of guise, for reasons that are sfa to do with Flickr as I don't use it and am sure that many on here don't use Flickr either!

 

[TheBigYin]

PITA?

Pain In The Arris....

 

[Flashman]

I'm on a big monitor (30" at 2560x1600) and still preferred the smaller limit... 800 lets me compare two landscape images together without scrolling which I miss with the bigger images. I won't lose much sleep whichever way it goes though.


Smaller:

Bigger:

(With apologies to 'Dark Star' John and 'Digitall' Alan for grabbing their posts!)

 

[2blue4u]

I don't see where there's a problem with the ipad?

The large image is fine on the iPad. The problem is with the distortion to the rest of the forum page. See my earlier post.

 

[Dal]

What size monitors are you all using? You must all be on 10" screens for this to be a problem.

 

[CT]

I won't lose much sleep whichever way it goes though.

Neither will I, contrary to the impression I'm probably giving, and we are being nudged very pointedly in the direction of 800 pixels by the admin and mods who've posted in the thread. They're the people who put the most time into the board, so I can have some sympathy with their wishes, even if I don't understand them, it just seems to me that this whole scrolling issue is a pretty pathetic argument in favour of 800 pixels, and it seems to be the only one?

If 200 pixels is neither here nor there, why did we increase the TP Gallery limit from 600 to 800 pixels? At least with the proposed 1024 limit and images hosted elsewhere there's no impact on bandwidth or increased overheads for TP.

It looks like a clear win for 800 pixels, and I'm happy to abide by that, but in reality it's such an even split, that this recurring issue is going to be raised again, and probably before this thread has dropped off the bottom of the page. :shrug:

 

[LongLensPhotography]

Flickr doesn't offer anything around 800px. It is only either 600 or 1024px wide.

 

[CT]

Flickr doesn't offer anything around 800px. It is only either 600 or 1024px wide.

You can actually upload to flickr at any image size you like - nearly all the images I host from flickr are 800 pixels. If you upload the image optmally sharpened at the size you intend it to be viewed there's no loss of IQ due to flickr resizing your shots.

This is linked from flickr....

 

[Yv]

Neither will I, contrary to the impression I'm probably giving, and we are being nudged very pointedly in the direction of 800 pixels by the admin and mods who've posted in the thread. They're the people who put the most time into the board, so I can have some sympathy with their wishes, even if I don't understand them, it just seems to me that this whole scrolling issue is a pretty pathetic argument in favour of 800 pixels, and it seems to be the only one?

If 200 pixels is neither here nor there, why did we increase the TP Gallery limit from 600 to 800 pixels? At least with the proposed 1024 limit and images hosted elsewhere there's no impact on bandwidth or increased overheads for TP.

It looks like a clear win for 800 pixels, and I'm happy to abide by that, but in reality it's such an even split, that this recurring issue is going to be raised again, and probably before this thread has dropped off the bottom of the page. :shrug:

Actually CT I take exception to your comments. Only 4 of the 13 staff have posted in here, and one of them has made no reference to his preferences. We may carry the title 'moderator' but we are still members and as entitled to voice an opinion as the next member. It would be a very sad indictment of the forum if we weren't

Joxby summed it perfectly for me...forget issues with scrolling on my laptop or anything else...I find 1024 just too 'in yer face' - seemples - I am posting from my mac atm so can see 1024 images very easily, but I dont actually like it. :shrug:
However, every member is allowed to vote for their own preference, and as with every other vote, the majority will take it - if that is 1024, then so be it, accepted that it is the preferred choice of the majority. Either way, there will be a group that will say they won't post/comment because the pics are too big/too small - we will never please everyone.

Oh, and to settle the 1024/flickr debate - I personally don't think for one minute that everyone wants to use it because of flickr sizes, but the majority of complaints we get ref the 800 size come from people who use external hosting where 800 isn't an option [unless, as CT has rightly pointed out, you upload at that size]. This is not limited to flickr, and indeed can include their own choice of size for personal blogs etc, not just 3rd party hosts. I hope that sets the record straight on that particular issue

 

[grumpybadger]

I've just voted for 800 as most images are then 800x533, if 3:2 aspect ratio. This fits my laptop's 1366x768 screen well...

 

[CT]

Actually CT I take exception to your comments.

I suppose Wednesday afternoons are off now then?

 

[Yv]

I suppose Wednesday afternoons are off now then?

sshhhhh.....i was going to dole out the punishment then

 

[CT]

sshhhhh.....i was going to dole out the punishment then

 

[fracster]

Voted 8oo purely because my website is at 800, other than that i`m really not bothered though I can see both sides of the argument. If the 1024 is purely due to FlickR,then I suggest you pester flickr to change or use summat else to host your snaps.

 

[Davie]

If the 1024 is purely due to FlickR,then I suggest you pester flickr to change or use summat else to host your snaps.

or we could pester TP to up their 800 gallery limit

 

[jeangenie]

If the 1024 is purely due to FlickR,then I suggest you pester flickr to change or use summat else to host your snaps.

I'm very confused over the perceived 'problems' with Flickr. I load 800px to Flickr, the same as my Gallery here. Do I need to be taken into a quiet corner and have something explained to me that other grown-ups know about? :shrug:

I've voted 800 - it works fine for me.


Jean

 

[jollyjack]

You can actually upload to flickr at any image size you like - nearly all the images I host from flickr are 800 pixels. If you upload the image optmally sharpened at the size you intend it to be viewed there's no loss of IQ due to flickr resizing your shots.

This is linked from flickr....

But i dont want to upload my images to flickr sized to 800.

 

[CT]

But i dont want to upload my images to flickr sized to 800.

Well you don't have to - that's the whole point -you can upload them at any size you like as long as you optimally process and sharpen them for that size, but whatever size you upload at you wont be getting the best IQ if you're letting flickr resize your images.

 

[hepburn]

you wont be getting the best IQ if you're letting flickr resize your images.

And that's a bad thing? I prefer to keep my best IQ for my clients

 

[Yv]

And that's a bad thing? I prefer to keep my best IQ for my clients

so is there any point posting if you are not showing at best IQ? :shrug:

 

[hepburn]

so is there any point posting if you are not showing at best IQ? :shrug:

there's always a trade off, but I tend to use flickr as a proving ground for my images before they make it onto my own website so the best IQ isn't a major factor for me. I find subject matter, colours, composition, and loading speed are worth more points than a small IQ difference.

If we really want best IQ then why stop at 1024. Why not put upload and display at the best res the camera affords us? :shrug: The reality is it's a matter of balance eh?

 

[joxby]

I'm certaily not claiming 1024 is a technological advancement.

Ever thought of entering the diplomatic corps...?

I'm sorry, I could have picked a fight in an empty room last night...:shrug:

Why do you have to scroll your screen for the larger images ? Are you only using 1024 x 800 on your display ?

Steve

I don't have to scroll

And you've a total of 5 ish threads you have started in the photo crit section.....

I dunno what you mean by that..

Anyway, isn't the ipad all squished up at one side ?
And, the rules are still 1024, nobody says its going back to 800, tbh I haven't noticed a great pile of 1024's that got up my nose, I suppose not everybody does or even wants to post 1024..:shrug:

 

[dinners]

I'm sorry, I could have picked a fight in an empty room last night...:shrug:

No worries

 

[Dal]

Back on my laptop and wow, a 1024px wide image fits nicely on the screen.

A 15.4" screen. I honestly am amazed that so many photographers don't like seeing a bigger image.

 

[Arkady]

800x800...now we just have to get flickr to add that option in the drop-down menu.

 

[Jim.R]

Why does one size have to fit all?
Couldn't a modification can be made to the forum software to make the size images display at a size the user can select? Each member can select the option they prefer then.
This would also save the mods time having to hunt for and sort out over-sized images :shrug:

 

[POAH]

1024 probably just a bit too big but 800 is too small - 900x600 would be nice

 

[chunky monkey]

1024 is my vote.