version 2 POTN rules

[Diminished29]

Alright as you've probably already noticed I made a version 2 of the rules instead of getting someone to edit them.

Basically Simon ( _SBradley_ ) the current challenge #5 host informed me that the times didn't matchup on the rules as they did on the last challenges so I went in and made the correct this time to show up as noon Monday GMT just as all the other challenges we've done.

I also changed the size to 640 pixels instead of allowing 800 like we've been. After looking at many of the posts from this challenge I felt that they we're indeed to large and I have a 19" LCD montior guys, its not small and I still felt the images we're becoming a bit to big for judging so I think 640 at the longest side is much better. It also makes it more fair for those who still own some of the cameras with less megapixels to have a shot at giving a better presentation as now their pictures won't look as "pixelated".

Again, not big changes but I didn't want there to be any confusion with them being posted so I felt it only right to inform you guys about them. If you guys see any other problems please let me know so I can make changes accordingly.

Cheers,
Chad

[Moppie]

I can't stand a 640 wide or high image, and I only have a 17inch monitor.

It is simply to small, I find the degredation done to the image from that much compression is terriable, and can really ruin a good photo.
It also makes the images look very small, unless I run a rediculasly low screen res like 1024x762 or less. If your really serious about digital photos you should be running as high a screen res as you can.


And I fail to see how it effects users with low res cameras?
Are the really people here useing Canon compacts with less than 1 mega pixel? Which is a 1024x768 sized photo. That is actualy a bonus when resizes, as you only have to reduce by a small amount, yielding a better image than one that has been resized from 4 mega pixels or more.


The Forum standard is 800 pixels, and it seems to be a common standard accross the net, inculding gallary hosting sites like pbase.
The only time it could be a problem is when trying to get an image below the forums 100k up load limit. But again, if your serious about it then you should be hosting your photos off site anyway, where size limits can be as much as your willing to pay.
Free sites, like photobucket will allow images of up to 512k, which is huge, well above the compititions limits, which are easily achieved with mildly compressed 800 pixel image.

[Diminished29]

Moppie, thanks for feedback. Perhaps, its just me, but I have my monitor set at 1280x1040 just so you know. I'll see what a few of the others feel about it. Nothing is set in stone yet, I can edit it but I do perfer the 640 for judging especially images that are done vertically. Horizontal images really don't bother me its the vertical ones that have a length of 800.

Thanks for you input Moppie!

Cheers,
Chad

[Moppie]

You can try it for yourself, resize an image to 800, and then 640, and compare how sharp they are.
Or, for a better example check the G series challange threads, all thier contest entrys have a very soft look to even the sharpest focused photos.

[Diminished29]

_SBradley_ just PMed me saying that he wants to say with 800 as well. So, it looks like thats what we'll go with more than likely.

[Stefan A]

As one of those unfortunate souls who still has to deal with dial-up, smaller file size doesn't bother me at all!

Stefan

[Moppie]

We can still reduce the file size limit and retain the image size of 800 pixels.
Its possible for a 640x640 pixel image to still be 200k or larger in size.

Im on a 6.5Gbit connection, so it dosn't both me, but I do remember being on dail up, it wasn't fun :)

If we reduced the file size limit to 150k it would make a noticable differnce to dail up users, and IMO is the threashold at which a 800x800 pixel image still looks sharp and high resolution.

[nwyman]

totally confused now. The last directive on rules that came down (about three hours ago) states a file size of 200K, but a long side pixel size of 800.
Is this now supposed to be 640?
Will there be a definitive post re: the rules after this thread is finalized?

[Diminished29]

It has been a bit confusing Nancy and for that and the rest of you I appologize. I believe the main issue now resides in that of the size in which the images should be posted at.

Nancy, your right, currently we've been running the contest at 800 pixels on the longest side with no more than a 200K file size. However, as Stefan A. pointed out those with 56K aren't too thrilled with those numbers. I also feel that when the image is posted vertically it seems a bit too big as well. Though like Moppie said if we cut down too much in file size it can lead to unsharp images.

So basically what we all need to settle on now is a feasible size that the majority of us can still comfortably work with.

-Chad

[nwyman]

It has been a bit confusing Nancy and for that and the rest of you I appologize. I believe the main issue now resides in that of the size in which the images should be posted at.

Nancy, your right, currently we've been running the contest at 800 pixels on the longest side with no more than a 200K file size. However, as Stefan A. pointed out those with 56K aren't too thrilled with those numbers. I also feel that when the image is posted vertically it seems a bit too big as well. Though like Moppie said if we cut down too much in file size it can lead to unsharp images.

So basically what we all need to settle on now is a feasible file size that the majority of us can work with enjoyably.

-Chad

Hmm. I've been using 100K as file size all along. Isn't that the largest file size the attachment manager will accept? I know a few times I've had something like 103. K, and it's been rejected.
Have I missed something in the resizing process?

Nancy

[BullittMan]

What do you guys think of if you want a larger version of your image judged, to just provide a link to it in your post, along with the smaller version of the actual photo for people with dial-up and smaller screens to view in the forum. That way, those of us with 19" monitors can still view higher res versions and see all the detail that we should be seeing.

[teekay]

....I also changed the size to 640 pixels instead of allowing 800 like we've been....
Chad

A good idea. That size has worked well in the G-series challenges for a year and few people will argue the winning images there are in any way lacking in quality.

[RossW]

Hmm. I've been using 100K as file size all along. Isn't that the largest file size the attachment manager will accept? I know a few times I've had something like 103. K, and it's been rejected.
Have I missed something in the resizing process?

Nancy

No, you didn't miss something. If you post a photo as an attachment, the forum limits you to 100KB. Many users, however, store their photos on servers, and just put a link to them here. Then they can be larger size/higher res than attachments.

Depending on your software, you can squeeze a jpg file size down with greater compression, rather than reducing the image size... but that's where the quality can go to heck pretty quickly. Ditto for using GIF instead of JPG.

[Moppie]

We are talking about two differnt sizes.
One is viewable image size, that is how many pixels the image is long and high.
I like the forum standard of 800 pixels on the longest side, and hold that anything smaller degrades the image to much.
Some people maintian that 800 pixels on the longest side dosn't fit on their monitors.
I don't believe that to be the case, as I am able to view images of that size on my work computer, which only has a 14inch monitor with a resolution of 1024x768. And I consider that to be far, far to small, so at home I have a 17inch running 1280x1024 along side a 15inch running 800x600.


The other thing under discussion is the images data size, or how many bytes it takes up, which of course is how much space it takes on your hard drive, or how much information has to be downloaded over your internet connection.

If you are useing the forums own attachment function then you are limited to only 100 kilobytes, which is a very small file that would have to be compressed quite a lot.
In my opinion it is to much compression, and I know if I had to compress my photos to only 100k I would not be entering many contests.
There is any easy way around this problem though, all you have to do is register with a free photo hosting site like photobucket.com or imageshake.com etc etc.
These sites allow you to upload an image of up to 512k in size (thats half a megabyte) and then post the provided link in your post on the forums useing image tags.
This is all very easy to learn and do, and means you can display much high quality photos.

The downside of course is that the larger the file size the longer it takes to download and display on someone elses computer.
At the moment the contest limits file sizes to about 200k, which is a nice size for getting a high quality image that is 800 pixels on its longest side.

If there is one photo of that size in a thread it will load instantly on a high speed ADSL or Cable connection, but may take up to half a minute to load on a slow dial up connection.
When there are 5 or even 10 photos all that size the page many take several minutes to load for those on a dail up connection, and will often time out.

I think a file size of 150k would be much better compromise between image quality and file size, and would make life much easier for those on slower connections.



So, my proposal is we limit images to 800 pixels on the longest side with a file size no bigger than 150k.

[Diminished29]

Here's just an example of what I was talking about.

Here are what the pictures look like on my 19" Hyundai L90D+ monitor. The monitor is set at default 1280x1024 settings.

Again the horizontal pictures are more than fine, but the vertical ones bare fit on my monitor, and I have a pretty big monitor, well at least compared to most people that I've ran into.

Really I almost say we just leave it as is. We've almost done 5 challenges now without any complaints, so I think for the majority its been working well.

[Moppie]

Looks like somebody didn't set thier WB :D :D :D

Im running the same res as you are, but with an expanded task bar down the bottom (its two high) and I tend to run my browser minmised most of the time, so yes an 800 pixel high image won't fit in my browser window.
But, its very easy to just expand the browser window a little, and I can just fit an 800 pixel high image in quite nicely. And thats with a google tool bar etc under the other firefox tool bars I use.

[snowrdr]

Here's just an example of what I was talking about...


Nice first example, Mr. Krusty Beak looks good at 800 wide... :D:D:D