Better to post small

Discussion in 'Ethics and Philosophy' started by finny99, Apr 30, 2006.

  1. finny99

    finny99 Member

    Messages:
    83
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Can
    Shooter:
    35mm
    Is it better to post small images on here. Has there ever been problems with people copying and printing other peoples work? can you print from a copied small image from computer? Hate to bring it up , but I guess anything can happen
     
  2. Travis Nunn

    Travis Nunn Member

    Messages:
    1,602
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2005
    Location:
    Henrico, Vir
    Shooter:
    Medium Format
    With the size limitations on the files you can upload here, I wouldn't worry.
     
  3. finny99

    finny99 Member

    Messages:
    83
    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2006
    Location:
    Toronto, Can
    Shooter:
    35mm
    I see, there is a canadian photo site I noticed you cant even save the picture, thought that was a cool feature
     
  4. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,964
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    But you can take a screenshot of the image and save it that way. Most web images would make pixly printouts due to their low resolution..
     
  5. Amund

    Amund Member

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    While we`re at it.
    IMO, it`s a shame we only have a 650x650 pixel maximum size here, please make it 1024x768 at least.
     
  6. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I think that would be too large for the average computer user's monitor. I would however agree with a small increase in size up to say 800 pixels on the long side.
     
  7. Sean

    Sean Admin Staff Member

    Messages:
    8,964
    Joined:
    Aug 29, 2002
    Location:
    New Zealand
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    how about 750x750?
     
  8. Amund

    Amund Member

    Messages:
    902
    Joined:
    Nov 18, 2004
    Location:
    Oslo,Norway
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    Anything larger than the current size is nice.
     
  9. Andy K

    Andy K Member

    Messages:
    9,422
    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2004
    Location:
    Sunny Southe
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    That'd be cool Sean! I wasn't complaining btw, I have got used to the 650 pixel limit, but if going up to 750 doesn't cause any site problems I for one certainly won't object! :smile:
     
  10. kjsphoto

    kjsphoto Subscriber

    Messages:
    1,322
    Joined:
    Apr 21, 2004
    Shooter:
    Sub 35mm
    That would be way cool!
     
  11. rbarker

    rbarker Member

    Messages:
    2,222
    Joined:
    Oct 31, 2004
    Location:
    Rio Rancho,
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    IMHO, 750x750 would be a good compromise between viewing comfort and download speed. Unless, of course, one is on a dial-up connection. :cool:
     
  12. MattKing

    MattKing Subscriber

    Messages:
    15,220
    Joined:
    Apr 24, 2005
    Location:
    BC, Canada
    Shooter:
    Multi Format
    I'm wondering...

    If bandwidth/server space is the biggest concern, and the software permits it, a size limitation that allows for a greater number of pixels for the longer dimension of a rectangular image would be nice. As an example:

    750x750 = 562,500 pixels square, while
    850x650 = 552,500 pixels square.

    Both examples consume similar amounts of server space, and may use similar amounts of bandwidth (please correct me on this if I'm wrong), but the resulting increase in resolution for a rectangular image is significant.

    Matt
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Apr 30, 2006
  13. roteague

    roteague Member

    Messages:
    6,671
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2004
    Location:
    Kaneohe, Haw
    Shooter:
    4x5 Format
    Look in your browser cache - the images will all be there.