Save 69% on inPixio Photo Studio 11 Ultimate (discount applied at checkout)

The 50k Blues

itinerario 17 42 Netherlands
12 Nov 2003 8:50AM
I have read in the comments that several people were unpleasantly surprised by the way their pictures looked after uploading. I have the same experience and for this reason have deleted several photos right away. The reason for this drop in quality is not hard to fathom: 50 kb is not much for an image file. If I resize my photos to 500 pixels height or width in the highest quality, I usually get files nearly double that size. Then I can either make them smaller, save them in a lower quality, or leave it to you (which I usually do). In all cases the picture suffers. The more information an image contains (in colour and/or pattern), the bigger the file is and the more it loses in transition. Often jagged black edges appear which give the impression that the photo has been sharpened too much.
I dont know what reason Ephotozine has to limit the maximum file size to 50 kb, but Ive read that you have loads of server space. Since the number of photos a member can upload in a week has been drastically curtailed, isnt it possible to enlarge the maximum file size to 100 kb? Then the maximum space a member can claim will still have dropped from 700 kb to 200 kb.
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
12 Nov 2003 9:21AM
Here here.

It would be nice if our works of art could be shown in all their glory.
stevenj 17 2.0k England
12 Nov 2003 9:31AM
I don't have any works of art, Barrie Sad

I agree whole heartedly - it's a wonderful suggestion. First we need WILL to confirm the possbilities?
digicammad 17 22.0k 40 United Kingdom
12 Nov 2003 9:34AM
Hi Saskia. My understanding from previous comments made by Pete is that the problem isn't to do with total space on the server, rather the fact that many people are still trying to get by with dial up connections. 50k isn't ideal, but at least download times are good.

Having said that, I would agree that a 100k limit would seem to be optimum for the 500x500 image size. Maybe Pete could comment on the drawbacks of upping the limit a little.

stevenj 17 2.0k England
12 Nov 2003 9:39AM
I never used to be bothered by 56k modem upload speeds - 100k isn't that much. As for the download speed of 100k images, that's why we have thumbnails...
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
12 Nov 2003 10:09AM
Point taken about download speeds so how about taking a leaf out of the PBase book.

Basically, you can upload at the higher res if you want to and their software then puts buttins under the image to allow you to show it at different sizes.

Therefore, you can choose the optimum size for your personal configuration.

I have some images in PBase - have a look and see what I mean by using the link here

More work for Will!

kit-monster 17 3.7k 2 Singapore
12 Nov 2003 11:12AM
If bandwidth was an issue then it could be an option to add to your profile? Then images would be displayed at an appropriate size. Only down size would be storing three images, thumbnail, 50k and 100k and some coding from Will.
itinerario 17 42 Netherlands
13 Nov 2003 8:29AM
By now I am so used to the luxury of cable internet that I had all but forgotten the unfortunate who depend on a dial up connection. However, I wonder how many members or regular visitors still do. Downloading a page of thumbnails must take ages! Perhaps this is a fitting subject for an Ephotozine poll. And if it turns out that they only form a tiny minority .
SuziBlue 18 16.2k 10 Scotland
13 Nov 2003 8:40AM
I'm on a dial-up and currently it's not too bad waiting for pages to load. However I think if the size of large files went up too much I'd be commenting far, far less as it would be too time-consuming to wait yawning for an image to load.

I'll probably disport myself in the forum far more in that case! ("oh NO", sighs Pete - "more trees, cheese and badgers .. gawd! .." .. LOL)
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
13 Nov 2003 9:03AM
Are you allowed to disport in a public place?

I must admit, when I moved to North Wales, I was able to have Broadband for the first time. As with all things, familiarity breeds contempt and I didn't realise just how good it was until I went to a friends house recently to set up his PC. He only lives a few miles away in a Snowdonia village but they do not have Broadband yet.

It made me very grateful I can tell you!

sean 18 169
13 Nov 2003 9:09AM
I sometimes find the 50K limit requires such a high level of JPEG compression that the image is degraded when viewed on the screen.

The more complex an image, then the bigger the file will be for a given level of JPEG compression.

I use Paintshop pro to save the image for uploading, and I keep adjusting the compression level until the image file size is just below 50Kbytes.

For a simple image, this might be around about '15' on the compression setting, whilst a very complicated image might need upto about '30'.

I find that once the compression ratio goes above 20 then the quality starts to drop off.

A way round this is to make the image smaller than 500x500. e.g. 450x450.

I have found the 50K limit is fine for 90% of my images, but for for some, a larger file size would be better, maybe 60K.

I would also recommend making sure your image is under 50K and within 500x500 before uploading. Otherwise the image will be resized and compressed by the ePhotozine site, which could also degrade the quality of the viewed image.


Atlas 17 621 United Kingdom
13 Nov 2003 9:20AM
Yes thats right Sean you must be exact when resizing your images if its slightly too big it will be compressed again by the site, which has the same effect as compressing it twice yourself resulting in a grainy image.

ken j. 17 374
13 Nov 2003 9:28AM
Looking at Sean's portfolio (and Rob's)would seem to prove the point that there is really no need to increase file sizes as long as images are uploaded correctly.
As for broadband - there are still areas which are unable to receive it and the cost factor also prohibits it to others.
User_Removed 19 7.3k 6 United Kingdom
13 Nov 2003 9:35AM

That is a bit too simplistic. More complex images (range of tones etc) will not enable the JPEG compression algorith (at a given JPEG compression setting) to reduce the file size to an acceptable value for uploading and therefore you are forced to use a lower JPEG compression setting than you would normally want to use or find acceptable.

There are many images here where the subtlety has been completely destroyed because of this.

I really don't understand the big deal about this. If the file size limit is increased to 100K for example (and most of the well know photosites around allow 125K or even more) then that doesn't mean you have to upload at that size - it's your choice.

If this was implemented alongside my suggestion of being able to choose which sized image you wanted to view (along the lines of the situation at then everyone should be happy

amaryllis 17 120
13 Nov 2003 9:36AM
I would gladly pay for broadband were it available in remote communities such as mine, as would the 64 others who have registered their interest in my area and wait like me for the magic trigger level (as yet undisclosed) to be reached....

Doing anything that would disadvantage the many contributors to EPZ from rural areas would, imho, be a retrograde step

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.