Rule change request: Maximum image size

[Ben Fried]

800x800 pixel images seem very limiting in this day and age. I'd like to suggest increasing this limit to 1024x1024.

800 pixels looks like a tiny spec on my monitor and I'd have to imagine that anyone on a PHOTOGRAPHY forum would atleast be using a resolution that could view 1024 pixel wide images. Even x-brand cheap monitors that cost $100 have a native resolution of 1280x1024 these days.

If the rule is set in stone and you never plan on changing it, I understand. Just keep in mind that screens and resolutions are only getting bigger, and this is going to become and issue for more and more members as time goes on.

Thanks for your time.

[Jon]

The limit's also to keep download times reasonable. 1024x1024's also 60% more data to transfer than 800x800.

[Ben Fried]

While your 60% figure is basically correct, let's break this down in to reality and numbers that people are more familiar with.

Just for example, I have a picture here in both 1024x683 and 800x533.

The 1024 image is 510kb, the 800 image is 333k. The difference being 177kb.

Even on a slow broadband connection, downloading 177kb takes less than a second. So, to say that people can't wait an extra half a second for a picture to load is a bit ridiculous. If you're on 56k, the images are going to take forever to load anyway. I can't imagine there are very many people that frequent the photo sharing sections on a dial-up connection.

Either way, shouldn't it be up to the AUTHOR of the post / PHOTOGRAPHER to decide what size his/her images should be (within reason)? If I want people to wait an extra half a second for the image to load, that's my choice. It's not like I'm using POTN's bandwith, they're hosted on my own server. Obviously attaching images using POTN's hard drive space and bandwith should be limited, but why should it matter if I host it myself? If people are too impatient to wait an extra half a second, they can look at someone else's thread; no big deal.

In the dial-up days, people posted 640x480 images. Since then, monitor resolutions have trippled and bandwith has increased by over 50 times. To say that I can't post an image that is twice as large when people have 50 times the bandwith is a bit silly. Times and technology have changed, it's time for the rules to follow suit.

[tommykjensen]

You would be surprised how many still use monitors with max resolution 1024x768 in which case the 800x800 just barely fit so scrolling sideways is avoided.

Also with regards to size there is surprising many that still use 56k modems. And for them 177 kb extra is a lot extra time to wait.

You can always post a thumbnail and link to your bigger versions for anybody that want to view them.

In any case this request has been up many times and ultimately it is Pekka that decide this and last time it was up there were no indication that he would change his mind any time soon.

[EOSAddict]

Even on a slow broadband connection, downloading 177kb takes less than a second. So, to say that people can't wait an extra half a second for a picture to load is a bit ridiculous. If you're on 56k, the images are going to take forever to load anyway. I can't imagine there are very many people that frequent the photo sharing sections on a dial-up connection.

Welcome to the real world outside of good-ole USof A fella... Imagine a thread of up to 8 images that load at that rate.... frustrating eh?

Either way, shouldn't it be up to the AUTHOR of the post / PHOTOGRAPHER to decide what size his/her images should be (within reason)? If I want people to wait an extra half a second for the image to load, that's my choice. It's not like I'm using POTN's bandwith, they're hosted on my own server. Obviously attaching images using POTN's hard drive space and bandwith should be limited, but why should it matter if I host it myself? If people are too impatient to wait an extra half a second, they can look at someone else's thread; no big deal.

In the dial-up days, people posted 640x480 images. Since then, monitor resolutions have trippled and bandwith has increased by over 50 times. To say that I can't post an image that is twice as large when people have 50 times the bandwith is a bit silly. Times and technology have changed, it's time for the rules to follow suit.

No, actually it's up to the OWNER of this forum to decide the rules ;) you know, the one who plows his own money in to give us this great place... uses his server space to host all thes images... ?

[Ben Fried]

Welcome to the real world outside of good-ole USof A fella... Imagine a thread of up to 8 images that load at that rate.... frustrating eh?

The United States' broadband penetration is 24th in the world. To think that the US is the only country in the world with broadband is just stupid.

No, actually it's up to the OWNER of this forum to decide the rules ;) you know, the one who plows his own money in to give us this great place... uses his server space to host all thes images... ?

Once again, I told you I was hosting the images myself, but thanks for NOT READING my post. He's not paying a dime in extra bandwith for my larger images. Don't think I'm not appreciative either. I own several large forums and I know exactly what it costs. I've donated to this site several times to show my support.

It looks like the bottom line here is all anyone wants to do is fight with me, so you might as well close the thread. It's apparent that no one understands what I'm asking. It's almost like you think changing the rules to allow for 1024 images is going to flood the forums with huge images that no one can look at. If the rules changed, most people would still use their old sizes. If the larger size was really that un-popular with the forum masses none of the authors / photographers would use it anyway. All I'm asking is that you let people decide for themselves what size they want to see; it's pretty simple.

[Blue Deuce]

[quote=Ben Fried;3422321]
It's apparent that no one understands what I'm asking.

I understand and I agree to a point. But then again I am just another member with no say so, so I enjoy whats offered here and accept the decisions of the owner.

[CyberDyneSystems]

Ben it's not a fight with you,
Seriously, we have 100,000 members, and there is no one single resolution limit that will satisfy all of them.

Even in one of your own posts above you acknowledge there has to be limit, your words "within reason"
We have pondered this a lot and the limit we have come to for now that we consider "within reason" is 800.

If we make a change every time someone asks for one, this week it would be 1024, next week it would be 640 again, then the following it would 1000, and so on.


It's just one of several .. in fact dozens of lines that every forum has to draw.

I hope this helps to explain it.

[tommykjensen]

All I'm asking is that you let people decide for themselves what size they want to see; it's pretty simple.

As I said you have the choice of posting a 800x800 image or a smaller thumbnail and link to a bigger version.

On your own site it is your choice what size you want to present. But here the size is set. I have not seen any indication from Pekka that he wants to change the size limit. The size limit is here mainly to ensure all have a good experience on the forum. If a dialup user opens a thread with huge 500 kb images they will quickly stop checking photo threads. If a user with a screen resolution of 1024x768 views the forum and photos are bigger than 800 pixels wide they will need to scroll sideways. Result they don't view photo threads. And ultimately that results in fewer views of shared photos which results in fewer comments which in turn results in more threads complaing why they don't get comments on their photos.

[Ronald S. Jr.]

I'm fine with the dimensions allowed, my only problem is that it's awful hard for me to get my shots at a decent quality under 100kb. I'd kill for an extra 20 or 25kb. Mine always seem to be JUST over.

[Pekka]

I'm fine with the dimensions allowed, my only problem is that it's awful hard for me to get my shots at a decent quality under 100kb. I'd kill for an extra 20 or 25kb. Mine always seem to be JUST over.

If you attach you have 100KB limit, there is no file size limit when you embed.

Attachments size is limited so that it would be possible to offer that free storage service. Now there are about 12 Gigabytes of attachments, if the file size was 200K it would be 24 Gigabytes and so on. Because the growth of POTN is linear it means the attachments are used more and more which means more disk space needed. Attachments also cause the largest bandwidth pressure, attachments have been downloaded 33 million times since we started offering the service.

The 800 pixel guideline for embedded photos is still good today because it is the lowest common denominator in currently popular monitor sizes (17-19" LCD). 19" LCD resolution is invariably 1280*1024 pixels and if you place it vertically (very common these days) the horizontal resolution is 1024 pixels. When you add forum user-interface, you do not have 1024 left for a photo - a 800 wide photo fits just in. And the full monitor width is not a reasonable target width in most computers, with windowed operating systems not all use full screen windows - especially with newer wide screens with 1920 x-resolution full screen browsing is very impractical, with such big monitors it is common to use several relatively small windows. Then we start to have more and more PDA/GSM readers because those devices are getting better, even flagship models' resolution do not exceed 800 horizontally.

Posting very wide images will crop your photos for majority of viewers and force them to scroll sideways without ever seeing the whole picture - IMHO that is not the best way to present your best work and compositional skills.

If you are not happy with 800 rule, you are free to post e.g. thumbnail and link that to your gallery. That is a good choice if you want to control both image presentation and quality.

[cdifoto]

800x800 pixel images seem very limiting in this day and age. I'd like to suggest increasing this limit to 1024x1024.

800 pixels looks like a tiny spec on my monitor and I'd have to imagine that anyone on a PHOTOGRAPHY forum would atleast be using a resolution that could view 1024 pixel wide images. Even x-brand cheap monitors that cost $100 have a native resolution of 1280x1024 these days.

If the rule is set in stone and you never plan on changing it, I understand. Just keep in mind that screens and resolutions are only getting bigger, and this is going to become and issue for more and more members as time goes on.

Thanks for your time.

Forum template + 1024px image = me scrolling left to right. I have a good monitor but I ain't buying something bigger just for your pics.

Link to 'em.

[Jon]

And there are one he11 of a lot of people coming in on dial-up, or who check here via cell phone/BlackBerry/PDA which are nowhere close to even 800 pixels wide.

[Ben Fried]

And there are one he11 of a lot of people coming in on dial-up, or who check here via cell phone/BlackBerry/PDA which are nowhere close to even 800 pixels wide.

I have a blackberry and a blackjack and both of them compress and resize the images to fit the screen. There is no difference in loading time between a 800 vs 1024 size image on either of my devices.

Seems like everyone wants to come up with some way to tell me why the world isn't ready for decent sized images. Every other forum I post on allows 1024 (or bigger).

It's amazing how touchy and/or just plain rude people are on this forum some times. I had no idea I needed a flame suit for making a suggestion!

SORRY FOR ASKING. @$#&!

[Anke]

I'm happy to stick with 800 max, I don't have my Safari browsing window maximised so 800 wide is plenty. Also what about those people who have a certain download limit?

[Zepher]

Someone didn't get the memo
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=3413074&postcount=134

[Zepher]

I'm happy to stick with 800 max, I don't have my Safari browsing window maximised so 800 wide is plenty. Also what about those people who have a certain download limit?

What about them?

[Anke]

What about them?


Surely adding 60% more image data to download would soon add up and they'd hit their monthly limit that much quicker

[T.D.]

I have a blackberry and a blackjack and both of them compress and resize the images to fit the screen. There is no difference in loading time between a 800 vs 1024 size image on either of my devices.

Seems like everyone wants to come up with some way to tell me why the world isn't ready for decent sized images. Every other forum I post on allows 1024 (or bigger).

It's amazing how touchy and/or just plain rude people are on this forum some times. I had no idea I needed a flame suit for making a suggestion!

SORRY FOR ASKING. @$#&!

Flame suit? I see nothing even coming close to a Flame in this thread. People are simply disagreeing with you (which seems to be at the root of the problem).


Please continue this thread. I love it when people are condescending and patronizing toward the mods and especially when they tell them how rude they are. It usually leads to something quite entertaining. :rolleyes::rolleyes:

[Zepher]

Surely adding 60% more image data to download would soon add up and they'd hit their monthly limit that much quicker

And that affects me how?

[Anke]

And that affects me how?


It called having sympathy for others who might not have as good a connection as you. Now stop being argumentative.

[Belmondo]

I have a blackberry and a blackjack and both of them compress and resize the images to fit the screen. There is no difference in loading time between a 800 vs 1024 size image on either of my devices.

Seems like everyone wants to come up with some way to tell me why the world isn't ready for decent sized images. Every other forum I post on allows 1024 (or bigger).

It's amazing how touchy and/or just plain rude people are on this forum some times. I had no idea I needed a flame suit for making a suggestion!

SORRY FOR ASKING. @$#&!Actually, prior to this post of yours, I thought people were really being thoughtful and considerate in their answers to you.

Well, okay. One was a little bit edgy.;)

It is always our goal to implement policies that make POTN available to the largest possible number of members. Admittedly, many of us can get away with larger images, but many still can't. We're not defining ourselves by the lowest common denominator; we're just trying to be considerate of all the people who have slower connections, bandwidth limitations, smaller monitors (including laptops), and so forth. As was explained, it is possible to post thumbnails that link to larger images, and I frankly don't see why you don't consider that a viable solution to the problem.

Finally, regarding your choice of the term, "@$#&!," I would suggest you use a spell checker. The proper spelling of the verb form is, "@$#!&." We're just trying to keep the standards up here.

Tom

[cdifoto]

Well, okay. One was a little bit edgy.;)

Which one? :rolleyes: :cool:

[cosworth]

You would be surprised how many still use monitors with max resolution 1024x768 in which case the 800x800 just barely fit so scrolling sideways is avoided.

The needs of the many outweight the needs of the few, or the one.

Bandwidth. I first saw broadband 10 years ago. The Queen Charlotte Islands in Canada's remote west has high speed internet. There is no excuse for dial up at all if you own a $1000+ camera. Please.

[cdifoto]

There is no excuse for dial up at all if you own a $1000+ camera. Please.

I can think of a couple.

Availability. UPS may deliver to remote areas, but DSL and/or Cable don't necessarily do the same.

Affordability. $1000 camera - One time expense. $50 DSL - Monthly.

[cosworth]

I can think of a couple.

Availability. UPS may deliver to remote areas, but DSL and/or Cable don't necessarily do the same.

Affordability. $1000 camera - One time expense. $50 DSL - Monthly.


If you can get broadband in the Queen Charlotte Islands, you can get it elsewhere. It just depends if you want it easy.

[cdifoto]

If you can get broadband in the Queen Charlotte Islands, you can get it elsewhere. It just depends if you want it easy.

Well if a DSL company says "sure, we don't service your area but for more than your car payment we'll get it to you each month" I would say hell no - especially if it was just for POTN and some yaywhos desire to force desktop resolution images down my throat.

[Anke]

There are lots of parts of the UK where broadband doesn't get to as they are too remote, let alone a country as big as the US

[cosworth]

Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A very un-Canadian thing of me to say but it's true. The percentage of internet broadband users with rez higher than VGA is staggering.

It's my last post on this. It's a losing battle. I just like to point out it's better to look forward than look behind.

[cdifoto]

Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. A very un-Canadian thing of me to say but it's true. The percentage of internet broadband users with rez higher than VGA is staggering.

It's my last post on this. It's a losing battle. I just like to point out it's better to look forward than look behind.

So then, as has been said before, link to your big arse images. ;)

[Anke]

It's my last post on this. It's a losing battle. I just like to point out it's better to look forward than look behind.

Depends on how good your behind looks :D

[lostdoggy]

So whats wrong w/ embedding your image??? Am I missing something here???

[tommykjensen]

So whats wrong w/ embedding your image??? Am I missing something here???

Nothing as long as the resolution limit rule is respected.

[steveathome]

Rules are rules
If you cant abide by them, start your own forum!
The ones complaining appear to have no end of disposable income, with little or no regard for others.
As already said, you have the ability to embed, so whats the problem anyway?

[condyk]

I use 600pix and am happy to do so because I know people in many parts of the world don't have broadband, or it is very expensive. I can appreciate other people's images at that size. I can appreciate them at 800pix. Having bigger images won't make me appreciate them more. A good image is about ideas and composition primarily. I embed all my shots and still keep them to around 180kb and the quality is perfectly adequate to get over the ideas in the shot.

I am all for sticking to 800px and if it changes I would want to complain. So, which of us is right? Neither ... and the Mods do a good job of managing the compromises necessary for the benefit of the majority.

Really this is a problem that has a simple solution, as has been explained, thumbnail shots, but the OP seems to want to be right more than to use that simple solution.

[tim]

Ben, you're not being flamed, and suggestions are always appreciated even if they're not adopted (i'm saying this as a regular user and nothing more). There are good reasons for the current limit, and people have gently and reasonably explained the limits to you. On other forums the replies would've been less friendly, but POTN is a very friendly.

A larger image size shows you more detail, but in general I find the difference between 600 pixels and 1000 pixels to be largely irrelevant. If an image is good at 1200 pixels it will be good at 600 pixels. There are also good reasons such as peoples limited screen resolutions and alternate viewing platforms. I personally use anywhere between 400 and 800 pixels, with no real reason to why I do what I do.

[EOSAddict]

Sorry Tom ;)

The original question and response could have been worded a lot better so as to not get peoples backs' up, that's all ;)

[cosworth]

Rules are rules
If you cant abide by them, start your own forum!
The ones complaining appear to have no end of disposable income, with little or no regard for others.
As already said, you have the ability to embed, so whats the problem anyway?

$45.99 CDN per month for 10megabit down and 5 up isn't "disposable income". It's a good price.

[EOSAddict]

$45.99 CDN per month for 10megabit down and 5 up isn't "disposable income". It's a good price.

But who givesa d**m what it costs if you just can't get it at that speed, don't have to be in Timbuctoo to not get good BB speeds!

[cosworth]

My response will just be the same. Even Turks and Caicos, the island where I lived in the middle of the caribbean with dirt roads and 4 police officers had broadband.

[condyk]

Is this another case of the US invading all corners of the world and seeking to impose their 'values' ... because they can :-) I think the world needs sensible US citizens to fight this arrogance, aka Tommy-Tickle, MC Cyber D, MC Jakie, SurlyVRose, ButtockBracket, Zacker, Ed Radar (Ok, I am running out now!!) The world cannot accept any more Duck shots larger than 800px :evil: We are at a watershed of decency and intelligence v's decadence and self serving egoism as it is :cry: :cry: :cry:

[cosworth]

I'm Canadian and the US lags far behind in broadband usage. The most used excuse is the poverty level stops adoption of it. I'm not sure what to believe about why the US resists broadband compared to many other countries.

[condyk]

Sorry ... I thought Canada was where the poor Amerikans lived :o :o ;)

[EOSAddict]

I give up....

[pigasus]

I give up....

No, Al. Don't give up! I thought your "The world cannot accept any more Duck shots larger than 800px " was a great line. ;)

Sally

[EOSAddict]

Ahem :oops: that was Dave ;)

[jothefish]

You guys are hysterical!!! What a funny thread! Like Cavemen...

Tim - nice answer - see all of you - Kiwis are very diplomatic and well balanced

[Belmondo]

Kiwis are very diplomatic and well balancedHow about that, Tim? You sure managed to pull the wool over her eyes. (New Zealanders know a lot about wool.)

[steveathome]

It's my last post on this. It's a losing battle. I just like to point out it's better to look forward than look behind.

Huh you lied Cosworth, I thought I could have a dig without you responding. ;)

[pigasus]

Ahem :oops: that was Dave ;)

Oh Gawd. Old age is really setting in. Do I come here often? :oops:

[Skip Souza]

My response will just be the same. Even Turks and Caicos, the island where I lived in the middle of the caribbean with dirt roads and 4 police officers had broadband.
Jason are you bragging or complaining that they had their priorities straight :lol:

[jothefish]

How about that, Tim? You sure managed to pull the wool over her eyes. (New Zealanders know a lot about wool.)


Careful - I'm a Kiwi too...;)

[Karl C]

I'm Canadian and the US lags far behind in broadband usage. The most used excuse is the poverty level stops adoption of it. I'm not sure what to believe about why the US resists broadband compared to many other countries.

There are portions of the US that don't have DSL or cable broadband availability. It's not about "poverty" - it's about economies of scale and telco's making a return on their investment.

I work in the Network Planning group of a telecom and possess firsthand knowledge and experience why telco's are, at times, reluctant to deploy the necessary equipment to provide service to rural locations. DSL is a distance-based technology; most users need to live within 18,000 to 23,000 feet of a central office or remote DSLAM (Digital Subscriber Loop Access Multiplexer)**. The number of potential users on a network node need to offset the capital costs for deployment. Keep in mind that providing DSL access requires a large backbone (a DS3 or larger - more like OCn fiber). Granted, installing aerial fiber is less expensive than buried fiber, it's still expensive. In my group, we sometimes receive orders from Sales requesting a basic DS1 to a remote location and, a number of times, the local carrier has to perform a buildout since they don't have the facilities in place.

For a good example, take a look at Qwest's network. They're the Incumbent Local Exchange Carrier (ILEC) in 14 western US states. Some of those states are pretty desolate and unpopulated. It wouldn't make good business sense to deploy broadband to the middle-of-nowhere Wyoming or South Dakota or any other rural location on their network.

This leaves some users with only dial-up. In metro and suburban markets, AT&T and Verizon are in a mad dash to install Fiber-to-the-Prem/House (FTTP or FTTH). Verizon is spending billions on this project. Unfortunately, I don't see widescale deployment of this techology for remote/rural locations, at least in the very near future.

Someday, most of the US will have broadband capability. Keep in mind, I'm only discussing DSL. I'm not knowledgeable with cable broadband technology deployment.

**The AT&T family of companies do have a DSL technology that has longer reach but I've heard it has some issues. Most DSL deployed today is Second and Third generation technology. I would venture that in the near future, DSL will improve. I know firsthand how bad First generation DSL truly was. :)

[Skip Souza]

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Wow Karl. I guess I already knew that but you made it very understandable.
Now if I just didn't have to pay all those additional fees and surcharges to provide service to the outlying areas that don't get the service anyway :p

[Jon]

Allow me to suggest a practical reason why we, as photographers, may not want to post images any larger than 800 pixels, one that should appeal to even the fattest of fat pipes and largest of screens. Intellectual property rights. The bigger your image, the more useful it is to someone else who may decide they like it and don't want to pay. 800 pixels will make a so-so 5" print; 1024 will make a pretty good 5" one and a passable 7" one, not to mention being big enough that embedded copyright notices can be clipped while still leaving a usable size for the web. That's not why the limit was set, but it strikes me as a pretty fair reason to not throw it away. Sure, people may still swipe your 800 pixel image, but the 1024 pixel image will be much more attractive.

[Karl C]

:shock: :shock: :shock:
Wow Karl. I guess I already knew that but you made it very understandable.
Now if I just didn't have to pay all those additional fees and surcharges to provide service to the outlying areas that don't get the service anyway :p

Thanks. :)

I hear you on the fees - someone has to pay for the excessive executive pay at the telecoms. :lol:

Allow me to suggest a practical reason why we, as photographers, may not want to post images any larger than 800 pixels, one that should appeal to even the fattest of fat pipes and largest of screens. Intellectual property rights. The bigger your image, the more useful it is to someone else who may decide they like it and don't want to pay. 800 pixels will make a so-so 5" print; 1024 will make a pretty good 5" one and a passable 7" one, not to mention being big enough that embedded copyright notices can be clipped while still leaving a usable size for the web. That's not why the limit was set, but it strikes me as a pretty fair reason to not throw it away. Sure, people may still swipe your 800 pixel image, but the 1024 pixel image will be much more attractive.

I agree - why make it easy for others to make unauthorized copies or prints of our photos? ;)

[lostdoggy]

I'm sure with Ben's Resource he can start his own Forum and everyone will be posting full size pics on his site and the members will have 100Mbps BB connection. With my lousy 5Mbps BB I'll be able to fill my porcelin bowl before the first pics is finish downloading. Ah, no thanks.

[::John::]

I'm sure with Ben's Resource he can start his own Forum and everyone will be posting full size pics on his site and the members will have 100Mbps BB connection. With my lousy 5Mbps BB I'll be able to fill my porcelin bowl before the first pics is finish downloading. Ah, no thanks.

See below

...Once again, I told you I was hosting the images myself, but thanks for NOT READING my post. He's not paying a dime in extra bandwith for my larger images. Don't think I'm not appreciative either. I own several large forums and I know exactly what it costs. I've donated to this site several times to show my support.

...

Ben - a lot of the pictures you have in the site you have in your signature (http://gallery.realitydesign.com) are only at 800px. (example (http://gallery.realitydesign.com/main.php?g2_itemId=99))

[lostdoggy]

See below



Ben - a lot of the pictures you have in the site you have in your signature (http://gallery.realitydesign.com) are only at 800px. (example (http://gallery.realitydesign.com/main.php?g2_itemId=99))

Yes I've Read that!!!

[SwimBikeRun]

After reading this I am under the impression that there must be quite a lot of people with crappy monitors out there.
So you take the most awesome pictures and then view them on a stone age 1024 pixel monitor? Maybe even a old flickering tube style one?
Better save some of that lens money and get a nice 20" wide screen or better. They don´t cost the world anymore. Got me the Dell 2007 Wide for 329 $, and that was last year so it must be cheaper now...

[lostdoggy]

Why stop at 20", 22" are going for under $300 and 24" have drop below $600. With some it will even auto rotate.

[SwimBikeRun]

Why stop at 20", 22" are going for under $300 and 24" have drop below $600. With some it will even auto rotate.

Yeah, I just wanted to keep it economic for the folks out there. I will upgrade to a 24" wide next year and my son gets the 20" then. Larger than 24" is over the top though, IMHO. Doesn´t really fit on a desk anymore...

[Jon]

Yeah, I just wanted to keep it economic for the folks out there. I will upgrade to a 24" wide next year and my son gets the 20" then. Larger than 24" is over the top though, IMHO. Doesn´t really fit on a desk anymore...How thoughtful of you. Aren't a few of you forgetting that this message board is for all people who use or are interested in any Canon digital cameras, including the new people who've just bought their first ever digital, a PowerShot A540? What you're suggesting is on the order of Pekka announcing that henceforth questions regarding inferior gear (anything but the 1D series and perhaps the 5D, or L glass) will be ignored as irrelevant. Pekka's place, Pekka's rules, and he's targetting the broadest possible range of users.

As an aside, have you guys donated to the forum recently? Other than donations from members this site's expenses come out of Pekka's pocket. It isn't self-supporting by a long shot. Remember that when you start lobbying for new features.

[Belmondo]

I am sure we will see new standards someday as circumstances allow. Changes are coming, but they will be incremental.

The next image size limit will be 801 pixels, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.

In the meantime, Jon makes a very good point about supporting the forum. These 'wish lists' remind me a lot of letters to Santa Claus. Not once does Santa say, "Sure, Kid. Now what are you going to do for me?", but you know he has to be thinking it.;)

[steveathome]

The next image size limit will be 801 pixels, and that's not going to happen anytime soon.




:D Any idea when maybe? ;)

[Belmondo]

:D Any idea when maybe? ;)

Unless you're terribly fond of the color blue, I wouldn't hold my breath.:lol:

[steveathome]

Unless you're terribly fond of the color blue, I wouldn't hold my breath.:lol:

Just jesting

I'm a firm believer of "when in Rome" and that applies to the forum rules too.

[tommykjensen]

:D Any idea when maybe? ;)

Only Pekka knows that. But as Tom I don't expect a change regarding this any time soon.

So for those that absolutely want to share photos bigger than 800 pixels check the thread Tutorial: Thumbnails with link to external image (and inline attachments) . Then you can follow the forum rule and allow the users that want to see larger versions to do just that (and you can give all internet users a better image for printing ;-) ). But I suspect many are more than happy with the 800x800 pixel photos. I only see one instance where the 800 pixel limit is a real limit and that is for large panoramas. But then again most of the members I have seen post panoramas already recognise that and link to a bigger image.

[SwimBikeRun]

How thoughtful of you. Aren't a few of you forgetting that this message board is for all people who use or are interested in any Canon digital cameras, including the new people who've just bought their first ever digital, a PowerShot A540? What you're suggesting is on the order of Pekka announcing that henceforth questions regarding inferior gear (anything but the 1D series and perhaps the 5D, or L glass) will be ignored as irrelevant. Pekka's place, Pekka's rules, and he's targetting the broadest possible range of users.

As an aside, have you guys donated to the forum recently? Other than donations from members this site's expenses come out of Pekka's pocket. It isn't self-supporting by a long shot. Remember that when you start lobbying for new features.

Back to the original topic, when I found this website first I was amazed that you could post pictures at all. With the abundance of free picture sites out there I would have expected to see a "links only" policy since, as you hint, transfer volume equals expense for the owner.

Aside from that, good point on the donations, I will go ahead and donate as I really get a lot of use out of this site. Maybe this should be mentioned more often.

[SwimBikeRun]

Donation sent. Who´s next?

[pwm2]

Maybe the FAQ should be updated. Exactly how do you donate money to the site?

By the way: I like the 800px limit. I often run two applications side-by-side, since the browser becomes too wide if run full-screen. When I need to, I turn on the second monitor, but that is so I can run a third or fourth app side-by-side, or view full-screen information on one monitor. Hardly the typical user.

[SwimBikeRun]

Link to donations found here:

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=57667&highlight=donate

[pwm2]

Thanks for the link.

[Ben Fried]

What you're suggesting is on the order of Pekka announcing that henceforth questions regarding inferior gear (anything but the 1D series and perhaps the 5D, or L glass) will be ignored as irrelevant.

I'm just quoting this to show how ridiculous this thread has gotten. Do you think you guys could have blown this any more out of proportion?

Your analogy is hilarious, I'll give you that. I'm not sure how changing a rule to allow a few people to post bigger images would make ALL users suffer, or make ALL other smaller picture resolutions ignored or irrelevant, etc. You act like changing the rule would suddenly force all users to post huge images and ruin the forum, and perhaps the world! Who knows right? 200 extra pixels can be pretty dangerous! :lol:

If anything, a proper analogy would be:

"What you're suggesting is on the order of Pekka announcing that henceforth questions regarding 1D's, 5D's, or L glass should not be allowed because there are users out there with Rebel XT's and point and shoot cameras that might feel left out."

If you don't have a 1D, you don't have to click on threads about 1D's, and you don't have to talk about 1D's. Likewise, if you don't have a high speed connection or you don't have a monitor that is capable of showing higher resolutions, you don't have to go in to my thread and view my pictures. Why is that so horrible?

Before you guys bother replying and post another 5 pages, keep in mind that the above was a rhetorical question. We're all beating a dead horse at this point. I simply made a suggestion, you guys didn't like it, and the thread has run its course. I don't know why you would think I'd go start my own forum just so I can post bigger images; I already have plenty of my own forums I can do that on. (*JUST KIDDING!*). I'm perfectly happy to post thumbnails, I'd just prefer to post my images in-line, that's all.

Some of you guys really need to calm down. :o

[tommykjensen]

Likewise, if you don't have a high speed connection or you don't have a monitor that is capable of showing higher resolutions, you don't have to go in to my thread and view my pictures. Why is that so horrible?


Because 99% of the time the poster do not include image size in the thread title. So it is impossible to avoid the threads with big photos as you say.

I agree this topic has been beaten to death so I am hereby closing the thread.