Now that we have more storage space in the individual portfolios, how about making the size of the pictures bigger? How about 750 max (instead of 640), and maybe 250K rather than 150K. Pictures look so much better when you can see them a bit bigger :)
Although they are a minority, there are enough long-time users who are still stuck with dialup that increasing the file size would not be feasible. Increasing the allowed photo size has been discussed at great length. The main argument against is that we cannot increase the height because too many folks have screen resolutions of 1024x768, and 640 just fits (actually only with full-screen display).
Width could be increased, but the argument arises that then we are artificially "encouraging" a landscape orientation, since the image size can be maximized that way. This a valid argument (look at the large number of square crops today, many are chosen specifically to maximize image area, and thus visible detail (high detail = better score). Still, IMO the benefits of increasing the width would far outweigh this. So far, however, it does not seem to have the support it needs to be implemented.
Edit:
The last poll on internet access speed was done in July, 2004 and the results were...
56k or lower 111
Cable / DSL 650
T1 or greater 53
...so 13.6% were on dialup as of last July. It's prolly about time to repeat the poll.
Sorry, I didn't realize this had been discussed at length.
Originally posted by kirbic:
Although they are a minority, there are enough long-time users who are still stuck with dialup that increasing the file size would not be feasible. Increasing the allowed photo size has been discussed at great length. The main argument against is that we cannot increase the height because too many folks have screen resolutions of 1024x768, and 640 just fits (actually only with full-screen display).
Width could be increased, but the argument arises that then we are artificially "encouraging" a landscape orientation, since the image size can be maximized that way. This a valid argument (look at the large number of square crops today, many are chosen specifically to maximize image area, and thus visible detail (high detail = better score). Still, IMO the benefits of increasing the width would far outweigh this. So far, however, it does not seem to have the support it needs to be implemented.
Edit:
The last poll on internet access speed was done in July, 2004 and the results were:
56k or lower 111
Cable / DSL 650
T1 or greater 53
Another arguement that has been raised is that the larger size would be more attractive to those who might take your images without permission. Some users are very sensitive about this, and rightfully so. Especially if they are trying to sell on DPCPrints.
larger photos (for challenges anyway and i know this is about portfolio) also mean that people with higher resolution cameras will stand out even more than they do.
My old camera was only 0.9mb and even though that can produce photos over 640, it didn't leave much room for error.
Please! please! don't change the picture size yet....I'm one of those that still don't get ADSL waiting for 2 years....I'm having trouble as it is to vote on 300 plus photos in a challenge, let alone comment on but a few..
I've very happy with the 640 restriction. I have even used it on my personal PAD website. It makes for easy downloading on slow connections and is plenty of room for viewing.
It also deterrs some people from just right-clicking and making an 8x10 of your hard work without making contact or paying.
