The GetDPI Photography Forum

Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!

Fun With Sony Cameras

Status
Not open for further replies.

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

I kept my car engine running just in case....:LOL:
Last one from me this evening...Cheers Barry


Barry...

If this were your high res posting I would not have had a comment ... this calls for a higher resolution posting.

Bob
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Clever and totally fine ;)

Issue was this: We had a few posters a while back that insisted on posting every single one of their images at full resolution, and they honestly weren't very good images to begin with. We tried a dedicated thread for large images, but unfortunately the forum software only allows global settings, and again, too many folks didn't understand or simply refused to play within the rules and frankly acted like spammers wildly posting huge images. We received complaints from EU, South American and Chinese viewers, as well some of our more rural area viewers here in the US, because they simply didn't have access to fast enough net to deal with the huge images. Guy did some background research on the list of violators and came to the conclusion it was driven by another photo fora site that had a bone to pick with us. Anyway, in the end to maintain the site viewability for all customers, we had to limit the image size to 1200x1200.

Note you can host a full sized image remotely, and embed the link here to allow those that wish to click and wait for it to load to do so.

Sorry to take the thread OT, but felt an explanation was warranted. Carry on!

Many thanks Jack for the green light - I was totally unaware that you had others abusing your site in the past in the way you just explained.
As I am sure you have gathered by now I like dabbling around with different ideas, I’m certainly not trying to break any rules or upset anybody here or elsewhere...Cheers Barry
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

So now we see an oversized photo of a fat guy with tats and no real resolution issues that necessitate an oversized image....

My vote is to respect the choices imposed by the 1200 x 1200 limit...link to an off site if your need is to show every mole on the protagonists chest...but allow the majority of us to live large in our ignorance....

JMHO....

Bob
Bob...Personally I like fat guys with tats...The more crisps ( :watch: ) they eat, the more pixels I want to do them justice with.

Being serious for a minute...If that image truly offends you I will remove the top half...Cheers Barry
 

docmoore

Subscriber and Workshop Member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Bob...

Being serious for a minute...If that image truly offends you I will remove the top half...Cheers Barry
No offense at all...just a matter of perspective...if the whole MF threads can make 1200x1200 work then it is difficult for me to see a need for more.

All of the preceding comments should not be taken as personal criticism...just observations.

Regards,

Bob
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

No offense at all...just a matter of perspective...if the whole MF threads can make 1200x1200 work then it is difficult for me to see a need for more.

All of the preceding comments should not be taken as personal criticism...just observations.

Regards,

Bob

Many thanks Bob...No criticism taken...Observations more than welcome:thumbs:.
1200x1200 currently works fine for me also...It was just an experiment to see how it would turn out...Cheers Barry
 

Arjuna

Member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Clever and totally fine ;)

... Anyway, in the end to maintain the site viewability for all customers, we had to limit the image size to 1200x1200.

Note you can host a full sized image remotely, and embed the link here to allow those that wish to click and wait for it to load to do so.
In my experience, there are some drawbacks when people include images by posting links to the images hosted elsewhere. The hosted images may be very large, and the full image is downloaded before the forum software re-sizes it. For example, there is one regular poster, who lives quite far from me, geographically, and who regularly posts multiple images at what seem to be full camera resolution, and it can take a fair while for my browser to download them all, and then re-size them. Often a number of very large original images, and I suspect quite a few web-hops away. I wish that people wouldn't do that - a waste of bandwidth. And then I wish that people wouldn't quote those posts, including all the images, which doubles or more the amount of data downloaded.

As an example, Barry's recent golf course shot is linked to a version that is ~1600 x 1000, so, not too much oversize to download, not too much re-sizing required, and it is a lovely shot, but I think that the site would be quicker and more efficient if posters uniformly linked to images 1200 x 1200 or smaller. I find that large enough to enjoy the pictures. If the poster thinks that higher resolution is important, they could add a link to a high-res version.

My two (Canadian) cents worth.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

No offense at all...just a matter of perspective...if the whole MF threads can make 1200x1200 work then it is difficult for me to see a need for more.

All of the preceding comments should not be taken as personal criticism...just observations.

Regards,

Bob
I religiously limit my images to max 1200 resolution and believe me, my medium format images lose a lot at that resolution, but I suspect that if it doesn't work small then it probably doesn't really work at all in the real world.
 

Annna T

Active member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Clever and totally fine ;)

Issue was this: We had a few posters a while back that insisted on posting every single one of their images at full resolution, and they honestly weren't very good images to begin with. We tried a dedicated thread for large images, but unfortunately the forum software only allows global settings, and again, too many folks didn't understand or simply refused to play within the rules and frankly acted like spammers wildly posting huge images. We received complaints from EU, South American and Chinese viewers, as well some of our more rural area viewers here in the US, because they simply didn't have access to fast enough net to deal with the huge images. Guy did some background research on the list of violators and came to the conclusion it was driven by another photo fora site that had a bone to pick with us. Anyway, in the end to maintain the site viewability for all customers, we had to limit the image size to 1200x1200.

Note you can host a full sized image remotely, and embed the link here to allow those that wish to click and wait for it to load to do so.

Sorry to take the thread OT, but felt an explanation was warranted. Carry on!
Thanks for all these explanations ! But a further remark :
When people post a picture larger than 1200, it will first get downloaded as big as it is, then downsized to 1200, but inside my web browser after the download of the full image.

It doesn't bother when I'm at home on a fast connection, but when I'm up in the mountains on a mobile connection, it is quite a nightmare : a while ago, there were several very big pictures in the fun with.. Thread and we were nearing the end of a page, it wasn't only taking a lot of time for download, but when trying to scroll down to the first unread message, the length of the page was continually changing as the pictures were progressively downsized and the page kept scrolling up and down in my browser (using Safari on an iPad). Plus I'm limited to 5 GB/month, so it is becoming a problem to check your website regularly. When on the move, I have to limit the number of times I check for new posts, or it eats too much GB.
 

GrahamWelland

Subscriber & Workshop Member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Tough to fix that one because I know that the resize code is in the page and it relates to an image from any URL embedded into the page. For uploads to the gallery there is some size management but you are correct that the image is downloaded at it's full size and then if bigger than 1200x1200 the javascript resizes it (crudely on the largest dimension but not both)
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

All good valid points above...I will just add a hopefully a couple more.
In the case of the "CHILLING" image above, I really can't see to much harm done as the two images were deliberately sized to the maximum GetDPI allowance of 1200x1200 and placed one on top of each other without any spacing...No waiting for those images to be resized whatsoever. If I had placed a space it would have looked odd and I doubt we would be having this friendly discussion now about larger sized images.

GetDPI members here that link their images directly from Flickr sometimes originally post full size images to Flickr in the first place, which in turn automatically generates you several sizes (BBcode's options) to select from. One size is a little larger than the 1200 wide/high GetDPI maximum, at 1600 wide/high and the other next nearest size is considered by some I expect as to small at 1024 wide/high...That I expect is why I and others personally select the 1600 wide/high version and just allow GetDPI to kindly resize it for me/us...(Otherwise I see absolutely no point in linking from higher than 1600 px images off of Flickr...Not even panos)
The only way to get Flickr (that I know of) to show lets say a 1200x1200 image, is to upload that specific size itself separately...But then the argument against that is that you then have to separately upload the larger image versions as well for Flickr followers and pixel peepers.
Alternatively one can just post your 1200x1200 images directly from GetDPI itself :thumbs: (plug).
Personally I think that the actual size of the file itself is more important than necessarily the physical dimensions of the image itself...I like to add a frame and that helps keep the sizes down a bit further still.
Less than 50 posts on a page would also help result in a reduction of images on a page this would perhaps help many with slower connections and bandwidth limitations...Just a thought not trying to stir things up again :angel:.
Cheers Barry
 

Barry Haines

Active member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Michiel...Rubinar 300mm crazy boke!
You have some weird and amazing lenses...I'm quite envious...Barry
 
Last edited:

Michiel Schierbeek

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Michiel...The link needs some attention my friend...Rubinar 300mm crazy boke!
Just left without checking. Sorry about that :facesmack:

BTW I like that tattoo image, these quys are part of life and you see younger versions of them on the football fields all the time :eek:

My images are all around 1400 px wide and automaticly downsized to 1200 px
That is the size I like to use on another forum.

 

Annna T

Active member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

All good valid points above...I will just add a hopefully a couple more.
In the case of the "CHILLING" image above, I really can't see to much harm done as the two images were deliberately sized to the maximum GetDPI allowance of 1200x1200 and placed one on top of each other without any spacing...No waiting for those images to be resized whatsoever. If I had placed a space it would have looked odd and I doubt we would be having this friendly discussion now about larger sized images.

GetDPI members here that link their images directly from Flickr sometimes originally post full size images to Flickr in the first place, which in turn automatically generates you several sizes (BBcode's options) to select from. One size is a little larger than the 1200 wide/high GetDPI maximum, at 1600 wide/high and the other next nearest size is considered by some I expect as to small at 1024 wide/high...That I expect is why I and others personally select the 1600 wide/high version and just allow GetDPI to kindly resize it for me/us...(Otherwise I see absolutely no point in linking from higher than 1600 px images off of Flickr...Not even panos)
The only way to get Flickr (that I know of) to show lets say a 1200x1200 image, is to upload that specific size itself separately...But then the argument against that is that you then have to separately upload the larger image versions as well for Flickr followers and pixel peepers.
Alternatively one can just post your 1200x1200 images directly from GetDPI itself :thumbs: (plug).
Personally I think that the actual size of the file itself is more important than necessarily the physical dimensions of the image itself...I like to add a frame and that helps keep the sizes down a bit further still.
Less than 50 posts on a page would also help result in a reduction of images on a page this would perhaps help many with slower connections and bandwidth limitations...Just a thought not trying to stir things up again :angel:.
Cheers Barry
Barry,

Just to be clear, I didn't have any problem with your two 1200 pictures, nor with other people posting pictures of reasonable size (1400 or 1600 in the largest dimension). But people posting full sized pictures like in another thread are creating nuisances for those permanently or temporarily on a slow connection. I just wanted to point at that, in answer to Jack's post.
 

johnnygoesdigital

New member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Barry,

Just to be clear, I didn't have any problem with your two 1200 pictures, nor with other people posting pictures of reasonable size (1400 or 1600 in the largest dimension). But people posting full sized pictures like in another thread are creating nuisances for those permanently or temporarily on a slow connection. I just wanted to point at that, in answer to Jack's post.

I mentioned this very thing in a previous thread, but you didn't seem to mind then. Why can't photographers just size these for say a 4x6 @ 150dpi and 70% srgb? When you click on the image it resizes rather nicely. What is the point of uploading giant RAW or High Res Jpg's and replying to those images. Pages would load so much quicker with scaled down photos. If you want more, just click on the photo. If you want others to compare RAW data, then send a link.
 

Godfrey

Well-known member
Re: Fun with the Sony A7 and A7r series

Because of sizing limits on a couple of other sites I participate in, and because I like to be courteous about bandwidth limitations as well as produce the best thing I can for display, I limit the overall size of my posted images (hosted via Flickr) to a 1024x1024 box (including any borders) most of the time. I'd used 1200x1200, but that broke on another site causing scaling which ruined the look of the images.

Sometimes I'll go beyond that like for stitched panoramas and such where you really do need 2000 pixels on the long edge, but then I push a 1024 wide image here and link back to the original.

G
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top