# Two things I just don't get



## The_Traveler (Feb 16, 2012)

1) Why people post these damn tiny images - maybe 500 on the long side and just resist posting larger ones

2) People just jump in to make all these amazingly detailed judgments about the shot based on these tiny pictures.


I look at a lot of pictures and honestly you can't see squat until they get up in the 800 pixel range in each dimension.

Most of the c/c on these tiny images I've read is just speculation and a waste of time.


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Feb 16, 2012)

Those of "us" that think we can see fine, give a C&C based on what we can see - and not what we assume we see. 
You don't need a 1024 x 683 image to see exposure and composition., but viewing on a smart phone, that would make sense.
Of course, the bigger, the better, then we could really pick apart some detail stuff, but overall? which is what I would hope someone is looking for? Sure we can.

Most of the time, I stop at a bad composition.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 16, 2012)

Yes, you might be able to see some things but certainly not enough.

By making a big production number C/C over a picture that is too small too see all the important things, you are encouraging people to continue to post pictures that are inadequately small.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 16, 2012)

On point #1 - it doesn't matter how large of a picture you post, the forum resizes it down to 600 pixels on the long side.

But, I always link mine back to Flickr - where larger versions can be seen.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 16, 2012)

Usually they post smaller versions to link back to their blog or flickr to increase their hit count.


----------



## KmH (Feb 16, 2012)

O|||||||O said:


> On point #1 - it doesn't matter how large of a picture you post, the forum resizes it down to 600 pixels on the long side.



That can be changed by the forum member.

Under Forum Actions > General Settings one will find 



> The Image Resizer - Default (Enlarge in same window)
> 
> Image Resizer - Width - I have mine set to 1000 pixels.
> Images wider than this width will be resized. Enter 0 in the field below to allow all widths, or leave the field empty to use the default value of 800:
> ...


----------



## Derrel (Feb 16, 2012)

Depends on the picture; many images do not "read" well when seen small. Some types of images however, can be evaluated at smaller sizes. The small maximum size TPF allows is rather ridiculous for a photography forum, so the forum owners/regulations are directly responsible for the inability to post large images. There is nobody being forced to give C&C, so how you feel about it doesn't matter much. I know from multiple posts you have made that this is a pet peeve of yours. Other people however, seem willing to give their C&C on smaller images. I suppose you could try to mentally re-calibrate,re-shape, or lower your disdain for small photos and try to lower your disdain for those who are willing to C&C what is offered, and not what YOU would like to see offered, but those hopes are probably just wishful thinking on my part.


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 16, 2012)

I think this is more an issue of "I can't be a sharpness hawk if the images are so small."


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 16, 2012)

o hey tyler said:


> Usually they post smaller versions to link back to their blog or flickr to increase their hit count.




I'm sure 90% of the time it goes back to a blog, that's the reason.

On Flickr, it's just easier to post them that way.  You just click 'Share', then copy the BBCode.

Plus, people can see the full size version if they want to.
Although, from what I have seen nobody ever clicks the link to see the larger version.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2012)

Guys, as KmH said you can change the default resizing that the forums perform on images - you can have it set to any limits you want. Plus to show the fullsize you just have to click the top-bar anyway - takes all of 2 seconds to do. 

Far as I recall our onliny limit is something like 800 pixels on the longest side which is fairly standard for most forums. One can then use links to show bigger versions of photos.


----------



## Josh66 (Feb 16, 2012)

Overread said:


> Plus to show the fullsize you just have to click the top-bar anyway - takes all of 2 seconds to do.


I did change mine to allow bigger pictures (1600x900), but that bar at the top of the picture never seemed to work for large pictures.

I have posted full-size screen captures that were resized by the forum, and after clicking the bar they still weren't full size.  I didn't measure them to see what they were, but they weren't 1920x1080.  (They were maybe half that.)


----------



## paigew (Feb 16, 2012)

Is it weird that I prefer smaller images? I hate when I can't view whole photo and I have to scroll down to see the bottom. Maybe I just have a small monitor or something idk...


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2012)

Hmm maybe post a query up in the help/problems section or try sending View Profile: ffadmin - Photography Forum & Digital Photography Forum a private message about the details (or use the contact us link on the forums, though that should just end up contacting ffadmin anyway).


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 16, 2012)

Derrel said:


> I suppose you could try to mentally re-calibrate,re-shape, or lower your disdain for small photos and try to lower your disdain for those who are willing to C&C what is offered, and not what YOU would like to see offered, but* those hopes are probably just wishful thinking on my part.*



Yes
But since you have your own, much larger it seems, set of things that you think would better done in a certain way, I would think you would understand.
Why participate in, and _de facto_ encourage doing, something that leads to a less-good result when a better result comes with no more effort?


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 16, 2012)

rexbobcat said:


> I think this is more an issue of "I can't be a sharpness hawk if the images are so small."



Rexbobcat,

I understand your hostility here.
Your images are certainly among those that are best seen quite small.


----------



## Joey_Ricard (Feb 16, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> Yes, you might be able to see some things but certainly not enough.
> 
> By making a big production number C/C over a picture that is too small too see all the important things, you are encouraging people to continue to post pictures that are inadequately small.



Traveler man, I agree with you regarding the fact that people sometimes post small images - I too wish they would post a size big enough to get a good look at for all aspects and with that said, I can only comment on what I can see. Uusually these are glaring things such as composition, style and ofcourse exposure.
200 more px on each side is not going to make it any easier for me to see composition or exposure.


----------



## Overread (Feb 16, 2012)

Just a point guys - but remember there will be variation on views here depending how big peoples computer screens are and their overall resolutions. Myself my current screen is old and rather small - can only just see a 1000pixel image if its landscape orientation and only the image showing in the browser window. 
People on laptops will be in a slightly similar position - whilst those with big high res screens are going to be seeing much smaller pics.


----------



## o hey tyler (Feb 16, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is more an issue of "I can't be a sharpness hawk if the images are so small."
> ...



What hostility? Am I missing something?


----------



## rexbobcat (Feb 16, 2012)

The_Traveler said:


> rexbobcat said:
> 
> 
> > I think this is more an issue of "I can't be a sharpness hawk if the images are so small."
> ...



I could make a phallic joke here, but I will refrain.

What is the first thing that people critique on this forum? "I think it's soft/the focus is off."

True story.


----------

