Amazon Kindle Unlimited Offer: 1-Month For FREE!

Picture quality of uploaded photos


belerophon 19 156
21 Jun 2003 10:14PM
in the past i have uploaded pics at 50k--and they where shown in the gallery at 16k--but tonight i find a pic from niall shown at 90k--do i detect a little favouritism
Will 19 1.8k United Kingdom
21 Jun 2003 10:57PM
No favouritism... Smile

Relying on a computer to re-size the wide variety of image sizes we receive is not ideal.

If you upload a 50k photo now it will stay 50k.

If someone uploads a larger file, say 200k the system might make it 90k. We could make it so this 200k file was around 50k, but then we'd probably start seeing nasty compression effects.
durlstonp 18 638 1 United Kingdom
21 Jun 2003 11:08PM
That's a cat out the bag...soon to be scratching and biting, I suspect.

DP
Will 19 1.8k United Kingdom
21 Jun 2003 11:12PM
Hmm you could be right DP.

Which has reminded me to point out that a 200->90k file probably won't look as good as a photo saved to 50k in a program like Photoshop.
bppowell 19 2.2k 2 England
22 Jun 2003 9:17AM
I think if you have rules you should stick by them. If an uploaded file does not meet the criteria for uploading in should be rejected with an explanation as to why it was rejected inviting the user to try again. Not scratching or biting just stating fact, why have rules if you just ignore them.

Barry
Carabosse 18 41.6k 270 England
23 Jun 2003 10:16AM
Or better still let people upload at a decent pic size (say 640x480) and with up to 100k file size. Surely that won't make the server fall over? (In these days of Gigabytes and indeed Terabytes).
RobMarriott 20 68
23 Jun 2003 11:47AM
Whilst I appreciate that quality of photos is important and a larger file size may give a better quality of image, there is another angle. Some people at home, and I am one of those 'unfortunates', that cannot get better than a 31K connection, never mind ISDN/ADSL/cable. Also there are a number of overseas readers who may not have a fast and reliable connections. Therefore, even if we like the thumbnail preview of an image we may have time to go make a cuppa before we see the full image.

Also for any company operating a website, the disk space and amount of data transferred from/to an online server has a cost associated with it.

All round it is therefore often polite and cost effective for a company to impose some form of restrictions/guidelines and I think that ephotozine does this really well.
railton 19 304
23 Jun 2003 7:01PM
Far from file size being the issue [ around 50Kb works fine ] I think resolution is, some of the reader gallery images are simply lost by the restrictive 500 pixel max, in particular scenic panoramics. Comment and critique is extremely difficult at this resolution, have a look at some of them in the gallery and you will see immediately what I mean.

I was a little disappointed that an 800 x 600 res for the site was retained in the recent upgrade, the whole world and his dog is upgrading or is already using a higher res, ah well not to worry perhaps in the next redesign? There is so much good stuff in other corners of eZINE now it's probably matterless.

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.