UPLOAD GUIDELINES - New version

[BartB65]

It's actually just that large size image hard harder to edit and get accepted. People have first to prove that they can get smaller pics accepted before we can allow larger, more difficult size.

You can't be serious. Never mind.

[dlowwa]

You can't be serious. Never mind.

Quite serious. The percentage of images submitted at 1920 that are accepted is much lower than that of images submitted at smaller sizes like 1280. It is very difficult to hide the flaws in an image at higher resolution, which is why we allow only proven uploaders to submit at larger resolutions.

[BartB65]

Quite serious. The percentage of images submitted at 1920 that are accepted is much lower than that of images submitted at smaller sizes like 1280. It is very difficult to hide the flaws in an image at higher resolution, which is why we allow only proven uploaders to submit at larger resolutions.

Ok, fair enough, but then I counter that by saying that a high-end full-frame 6720 pixels wide image will not benefit from being downsized to 1280 pixels. Sharpness, detail, contrast, everything the camera worked so hard for is being downgraded. I'd say that in 2017, 1920 pixels should be the very bare minimum for uploading images that are screened as thoroughly as you guys seem to do.

[LX-A343]

Ok, fair enough, but then I counter that by saying that a high-end full-frame 6720 pixels wide image will not benefit from being downsized to 1280 pixels. Sharpness, detail, contrast, everything the camera worked so hard for is being downgraded. I'd say that in 2017, 1920 pixels should be the very bare minimum for uploading images that are screened as thoroughly as you guys seem to do.

Now it's my turn: you can't be serious!! It is far easier to get a decent photo with a width of 1200px than with 1900px. Trust me! That's about 30 years experience talking to you.

[BartB65]

Now it's my turn: you can't be serious!! It is far easier to get a decent photo with a width of 1200px than with 1900px. Trust me! That's about 30 years experience talking to you.

So basically, you're saying that a 1920x1080 is better than a full frame 32 MP ? Interesting. Also that you apparently had 1920 pixels wide images when nobody even knew what a pixel was yet.

(Please, don't do the "I have so many years experience" thing here. You risk being outranked. Like now.)

All joking aside: I agree with you that a smaller image may SEEM sharper when uploaded in the smaller format. However, downsizing an image means loss of information. Always. Therefor, I argue that a big file is always a better image. As an original, that is.

The reason I wonder about all this is the fact that this JP-policy leaves the database with images in a format that causes them not to be as good as they could have been. That can't be what you're aiming for...

[Alex - Spot-This !]

.....
The reason I wonder about all this is the fact that this JP-policy leaves the database with images in a format that causes them not to be as good as they could have been. That can't be what you're aiming for...

A bad image at 1280 would look terrible at 1920...

[BartB65]

A bad image at 1280 would look terrible at 1920...

It would be a more honest way to judge them then (And you just gave the best argument to not let new users upload smaller files...)

[PMN]

So basically, you're saying that a 1920x1080 is better than a full frame 32 MP ? Interesting. Also that you apparently had 1920 pixels wide images when nobody even knew what a pixel was yet.

(Please, don't do the "I have so many years experience" thing here. You risk being outranked. Like now.)

All joking aside: I agree with you that a smaller image may SEEM sharper when uploaded in the smaller format. However, downsizing an image means loss of information. Always. Therefor, I argue that a big file is always a better image. As an original, that is.

The reason I wonder about all this is the fact that this JP-policy leaves the database with images in a format that causes them not to be as good as they could have been. That can't be what you're aiming for...

Apart from the fact your arrogance is nothing short of spectacular, you don't seem to realise this is the Internet and people generally view images on the Internet on computer screens. Exactly how do you propose people view such high resolution images natively? By only being able to see the engine or a few windows at a time? People generally want to view the entire image, not just a part of it in which case it makes sense to use smaller pixel dimensions.

By the way, I wouldn't upload any of my medium format film work to the Internet at full resolution because it's utterly pointless, and my high end commercial scanners are capable of creating far bigger files than DSLRs like the 5DS or D850. Nor would I upload anything I've been paid to shoot commercially at full size to the Internet - again, because it's utterly pointless.

I have no idea what point you're trying to prove but if you're trying to make yourself look big and clever you're achieving the precise opposite.

[BartB65]

Apart from the fact your arrogance is nothing short of spectacular, you don't seem to realise this is the Internet and people generally view images on the Internet on computer screens. Exactly how do you propose people view such high resolution images natively? By only being able to see the engine or a few windows at a time? People generally want to view the entire image, not just a part of it in which case it makes sense to use smaller pixel dimensions.

By the way, I wouldn't upload any of my medium format film work to the Internet at full resolution because it's utterly pointless, and my high end commercial scanners are capable of creating far bigger files than DSLRs like the 5DS or D850. Nor would I upload anything I've been paid to shoot commercially at full size to the Internet - again, because it's utterly pointless.

I have no idea what point you're trying to prove but if you're trying to make yourself look big and clever you're achieving the precise opposite.

[-Edit-] Never mind. Not going to waste my time on yet another photo forum where the silverbacks try to impress new members. I'm out.

[PMN]

[-Edit-] Never mind. Not going to waste my time on yet another photo forum where the silverbacks try to impress new members.

Oh, the irony...

[LX-A343]

So basically, you're saying that a 1920x1080 is better than a full frame 32 MP ? Interesting. Also that you apparently had 1920 pixels wide images when nobody even knew what a pixel was yet.

Pardon me? At this time, scanning slides for wallsize prints created photos, where actual 32MP cameras are a toy.

But now I know, what kind of person I'm dealing with. Good thing you leave. Saves me the time to put you in my ignore list.

[pawelm]

7. Please note that new routes are not considered as hot.

Guys, is this rule still valid?

[Alex - Spot-This !]

Guys, is this rule still valid?

Yes

[razashaikh]

As a beginner got the clear idea regarding site rules. Thanks!

[mohamadrezazeinloo]

Hi, my friends i can not upload more than 5 photos. What is it?