With the new increased dimensions I believe we can now submit photos with a height of 1200 pixels. However I am curious if for a portrait image this is the ideal height to submit or if it is better to submit a photo with a smaller height to ensure everyone can see it without scrolling. Or perhaps the new code to automatically resize sorts out any potential viewing issues?
My guess is about 80% of voters are using a browser (at least for voting) that automatically resizes or don't mind scrolling to see the whole image before casting a vote. In general, I have chosen 1200 pixels on portrait oriented images.
But that leaves about 20% of the voters who refuse to switch to a site compatible browser (Chrome; Firefox) and are irritated by scrolling to see the entire image.
I enter only 800 pixels on portrait orientation. I found that when I was looking at images on my laptop for which I had to scroll, if the top part wasn't interesting enough, sometimes I wouldn't bother scrolling. Lousy thing to do. But at least I was just looking at the time, not voting.
But it makes me wonder whether everyone bothers to scroll if they're not already intrigued enough with the photo.
So I don't take any chances. I stick with 800 portrait.
I say go with the full 1200px. I think the auto-resizing algorithm is working for most people. We need to stop accommodating these tech-slackers. Get with the program, people! There's no good reason you should be still using Windows 2000 and IECaveman. You're just being difficult... GeneralE!
Hey, I haven't said anything ... besides, I have two images in voting right now that are 1200px high. I think people should submit the largest image they feel comfortable with, and if it scores a lot lower than expected try a shorter one next time.
well said!! however ... if you want to get depressed read the thread dealing with "no rules" - we still have many luddites that use the term "manipulated" - oy! the fracking file is PROCESSED. sheesh. they need a time machine so they can go into ansel adams darkroom and see real manipulation!
thanks for posting this.
jim
Originally posted by aliqui:
I say go with the full 1200px. I think the auto-resizing algorithm is working for most people. We need to stop accommodating these tech-slackers. Get with the program, people! There's no good reason you should be still using Windows 2000 and IECaveman. You're just being difficult... GeneralE!
they need a time machine so they can go into ansel adams darkroom and see real manipulation!
Careful, there are a couple of us who have been in Ansel Adams' darkroom, including this Luddlite™ here (though I never saw him "in action" live). That said, I have it on good authority (from one of his assistants) that had Photoshop been around when he was alive "he would have benn all over it" -- maybe even on the splash screen ...
they need a time machine so they can go into ansel adams darkroom and see real manipulation!
Careful, there are a couple of us who have been in Ansel Adams' darkroom, including this Luddlite™ here (though I never saw him "in action" live). That said, I have it on good authority (from one of his assistants) that had Photoshop been around when he was alive "he would have benn all over it" -- maybe even on the splash screen ...
I say go with the full 1200px. I think the auto-resizing algorithm is working for most people. We need to stop accommodating these tech-slackers. Get with the program, people! There's no good reason you should be still using Windows 2000 and IECaveman. You're just being difficult... GeneralE!
Personally, DOS3.0 with a green CRT is my computer of choice for voting on.
