Take your photography to the next level and beyond...

  • NEWS
  • REVIEWS
  • INSPIRATION
  • COMMUNITY
  • COMPETITIONS

Why not join for free today?

Join for Free

Your total photography experience starts here


PRIZES GALORE! Enter The ePHOTOzine Exclusive Christmas Prize Draw; Over £10,000 Worth of Prizes! Plus A Gift For Everybody On Christmas Day!

Is there a downside to 1000px uploads?


AdrianTurner 10 350 Wales
7 Dec 2004 4:12AM
I have just uploaded a 1000px 200k version of my previous 500px 60k pic.

I feel that when viewed at 500px (normal view) the 1000px upload looks inferior to the 500px upload. Even though viewing the larger version by clicking the link allows it to be seen as intended, first impressions may cause viewers to ignore the shot.

So, Pete et al, how are the uploads resized? I assume that it is down to the page code and nothing else. Would it be possible to upload two files one at the 500px by 60k limit and another at 1000px by 200k?

This is not an attempt to generate clicks but I would like to hear the views of others.

Adrian.

Join ePHOTOzine for free and remove these adverts.

mshepherd 10 667 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2004 4:34AM
Adrian

I have just opened the two side by side in seperate windows and they both look the same to me.

Matt
elikag 10 749
7 Dec 2004 4:36AM
I'd click the link for every image that will allow me to do that, even if just to see if the focus is better (assuming I didn't like the smaller version).

On another note - there's a downside. In the past you could "blame" the resizing for the unfocused shot, now it's harder (for the e2 members of course) Wink

I'm just joking, of course. We should be improving our skills rather than hiding behind the thechnology.....

Ilia Kagan
UserRemoved 10 4.2k
7 Dec 2004 4:38AM
1000px photos will show up bad photos easier than 500pixels.


We've all seen bad examples of photos posted here with 500 pixels which are OOF but when borders are applied narrowing them down further they look OK.


I've said a number of times on the forum and in comments that 500pixels hides a multitude.

1000 wont.
AdrianTurner 10 350 Wales
7 Dec 2004 4:44AM
Thanks for the feedback guys, I for one am all in favour of the new upload limits and more than happy to pay for the privilege. The point of this topic was intended to investigate further as to the possibility of uploading two files rather than have a larger file downsized for normal display.

Adrian
mark a. 10 920 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2004 4:45AM
I agree, digiart - the two versions are completely different. But unless the compression techniques are completely and utterly different, I don't think they are the exact same shot, so it's tricky doing a proper comparison. E.g. look at the rock at the back of the photo.

I would say that 500p "auto-reduction" of the 1000p picture is a better copy of the 1000p picture than your original 500p image. (Does that sentence make sense at all?!) To my eyes, your original is a touch too sharpened compared with the new one.

Going with that, I actually prefer the epz version of the 500p image! (Oh, and I love the picture as well!)
AdrianTurner 10 350 Wales
7 Dec 2004 4:48AM
Hi Mark, that one rock is the only difference forgot to clone out the wheel trim that was there so had to do it in both copies indipendantly.

Adrian.
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
7 Dec 2004 4:54AM
We need to look into this further. I see the main problem is when you view both side by side. Viewed independently I don't think it's much of an issue to most.
mark a. 10 920 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2004 4:59AM
Ah, that'll explain that one, then.

But still, there are large differences - e.g. the patch of white in the water just at the bottom centre of the pic. To me the epz version copies it better than your original (i.e. there are three distinct patches of lightness, whereas in your original 500p image there are only 2).

Maybe it was a slightly different exposure as well? e.g. You took the photo from the same spot twice in succession?

But I certainly get your point that the epz auto-reduction will be different to if you did it yourself. The tricky bit is knowing which is better...
John_Duckett 10 386 2 Norfolk Island
7 Dec 2004 5:18AM
Going off track slightly my main concern with the new 1000pixel size is that anyone could download it and with a company like Photobox, get a half desent A4 print done. Not much use if like me you are trying to sell your images as prints.

Pete is there anyway to stop this as I would love to upload at the new size?

John
Pete e2
13 18.7k 96 England
7 Dec 2004 5:21AM
John you don't have to upload at the large size - it's an option for those who want to. I can't see a way around preventing people downloading - those who want to can get round most forms of copyright. As they can with music and software.
John_Duckett 10 386 2 Norfolk Island
7 Dec 2004 5:26AM
Thanks for the quick reply Pete. I'll give it a few days to see how it goes. For me that isn't the main reason for wanting E2 anyway.

1 very happy customer

John
sabretalon 10 1.9k United Kingdom
7 Dec 2004 5:32AM
They don't so much as get around copyright, they just don't acknowledge it and feel that because it is on the net then anyone can have it!
steffilewis 10 179 United Kingdom
7 Dec 2004 6:29AM
Maybe you should restrict 1000px image viewing to only people with an account on EPZ?

S
sabretalon 10 1.9k United Kingdom
7 Dec 2004 6:59AM
Steffi, anyone can set up an account on hotmail etc.. and then set one up on here.

There is an option to hide your 1000px images from non e2 members. Thus only people who have paid and potentially have used their own details to pay have access to the images.

Sign In

You must be a member to leave a comment.

ePHOTOzine, the web's friendliest photography community.

Join For Free

Upload photos, chat with photographers, win prizes and much more.