Nikon Wednesday Image Limits

When Jose Angel started Nikon Wednesdays way back in 2008??, we only allowed one image per person per weekly thread. Later on we increased to three images. Recently I noticed a few people have posted 4, 5 images and maybe even more to each thread. Perhaps it is time to increase the limit to maybe 5 per person?? I definitely don't want any one member posting 10, 20 images and totally dominating the discussion. Over on the Nature Forum, the limit is still one. A few years ago we had a discussion over there. Most people still wanted to keep that limit.

 

Also with bigger, faster computers, more memory and more bandwidth, the current limit of 1000 pixels across and within 300K bytes seem small. I discussed with Matt Laur. The concern is that if there are members who read these threads on mobile devices, the larger files maybe a bit demanding on the smaller devices. Are there concerns? I checked the No Words Forum. They also have the 1000 pixel limit but they allow files up to 1M bytes. That seems to be quite generous.

 

Any comments?

 

Here is an image that is 1500-pixel wide. Hopefully it displays ok.

 

I'm good with this, although I guess it's only a 'little' bit more to Full HD of 1920?

 

To fall within the 1MB limit, there needs to be a small amount of JPEG compression for a fairly busy image, but about the same as the previous limits, so about JPEG 8 or 9 with Photoshop.

 

Does this increased size bring up issues regarding image theft? Or rather, it does, but are they significant for most users?

 

Probably time to make a visible Copyright watermark....:)

I accidentally posted three more images to last week's thread as I had thought it was already Wednesday (it had been Tuesday). Maybe they could be moved to this week's thread where I had intended them. :)

 

I have been on holiday for 1.5 weeks and already forgotten which day of the week it is. ;)

 

I think three images per week is fine. If you want to increase the maximum number, that would be also fine although rather than seeing more images from one poster, it would be even nicer to have more people posting (even one image). A bit larger file size limit would be welcome as for subjects like forest I sometimes have to reduce the quality setting to 50-60 (from 100) to keep it within 300 kB. 1 MB limit would mean I can use 80-90 without thinking about it too much.

3 images is sufficient imo - if any of us feel a need for more, then there is the No Word, which is a challenge to find the subject unless you are a good starter.

I just recently started posting in the Nikon Wednesday thread, and at first I thought the 1000 pixel limit must have been an outdated rule, so I am guilty of having posted much larger files. I will of course abide by the rules in the future, but I find the image size requirements rather small when 4k monitors are a commonplace. I think three images per person is sufficient, if I have more that I like, I'll just choose which ones I post more wisely. That being said, I don't mind if others post more.

IMO, the quality loss from two few pixels is worse than moderate compression. 1920 wide would be just great and people pay attention to the compression (hey, it's adjustable you know!) the sizes shouldn't be a problem. As for the number of images, I have enough trouble coming up with one good one, much less five.

Shun,

You're a computer professional so I can't doubt your knowledge but I think the mobile devices now with 5G is having more bandwidth than some home. The memory used is temporary not taking the memory for storage. The screen resolution of these mobile devices have more resolution than most people standard monitor of 1920x1080.

the 1000px and 1 GB upload limit

Make that 1MB!

In the keyday of photo.net, probably around the late 2000's (i.e. 2008, 2009, and 2010), I think Nikon Wednesday used to have over 100 posts a week, even though the limit was just one image per person. And the width limit was 512 pixels. Previously we have already discussed the decline of photo.net in general many many times, at least amongst some old-timers and moderators. A lot of that was ownership/management decisions and investment at that time. It isn't like we have some magic way to fix it. I am sure a lot of traffic have moved to the likes of FaceBook and other photo sites.

 

The concern about mobile devices was brought up by Matt Laur, who in fact works in IT, but Matt and I are aware that most of us probably have pretty current computers and mobile devices. Actually my main PC is pretty old from around 2015 or so, and I am still using an iPhone 8 Plus that I got in early 2018. At least I am still ok, but I am definitely looking into upgrading my devices, maybe after the IC chip shortage. :rolleyes:

Here is an image that is 1500-pixel wide. Hopefully it displays ok.

I only see it larger when I click on it - it appears the display limit is 1000 pixels. How many will actually click on an image to see it larger? If that's the minority, then the larger limit will only use up more space without any benefit for most users.

 

I mostly link to images hosted on flickr - the linked image is then 1024 pixels wide. I don't upload larger than 1600 pixels there, so any limit larger than that here on PN would not be utilized by the images I post. A 1500 pixel limit is inconvenient for me as I would have to resize every image I post - or risk just linking to the 1600 pixel one on flickr. The file size limit should be reasonable - flickr reduces the file size of the original upload anyway and I doubt I ever exceeded the 1MB limit with any of my posts (it could happen if I upload an image from my desktop directly as I save mine at the maximum quality setting from photoshop).

I'm good with keeping the posting limit as-is, thus forcing contributors to self-edit and post only what they consider their best or most apropos work. As to the 1000 pixel limit, I like it as it is reasonably accommodated on most devices. I'd consider a much larger file OK for those seeking specific critiques, in that forum. Frankly, I don't much care for images that cannot be accommodated even on my high-end monitor without scrolling around, or clicking again for the reduced size. I intentionally limit my own images to the 1,000 pixels maximum in the horizontal, and 720 pixels maximum in the vertical, all at 90 ppi, specifically so they are easier to view on most devices. Others may feel differently, of course, and I do post and appreciate others posting larger images in portfolios/galleries.

 

Here is an image that is 1500-pixel wide. Hopefully it displays ok.

Shun, this image displays perfectly on my 27" high-res monitor, but the vertical dimension is closing in on exceeding vertical screen capacity. I suspect it will exceed vertical limits for some viewers. (Nice photo, by the way...)

The 1500 image (when I click on it) exceeds my vertical and I can't scroll it far enough left to see the whole thing. Monitor is a Viewsonic VP2468 1920x1080. I still think a larger image is desirable because this is a photo site and we tend to look closely, rather than a more casual venue.

I'm using a 21" iMac desktop to view photos here.

 

It is extremely rare that I see a photo that is too wide to see it all at one time. However, there are many photos that are too tall to see all at once.

It sounds like most of you are reasonably happy with the way things are on Nikon Wednesday. I'll get further input from Matt Laur and Sandy Vongries. We'll probably relax thing a bit, but nobody is required to post more images or larger images. I feel that 1000 pixels across is still sufficient to display most images, although, e.g. some landscape images may look more dramatic covering a large screen.

 

Appreciate everybody's input.

Increasing image quality by allowing larger files is a good idea. After all, this is a photography forum, so quality matters.

 

However, more photos does not automatically mean better photos. With one photo per post, a "like" means you like the photo. With two or more photos in a post, you may like one, two or all photos. How do you then interpret a "like"? That the person liked one, two or all photos in that post? Would a post even get a "like" if one photo is really good but the others are bad? Photo.net allows you to post as many photos as you like as often as you like, so it is not like this Nikon Wednesday thread is the only way to show off your best work. That is why I think it would be better if this particular thread would go back to a one photo per week limit, but allow for larger files.

If you want specific feedback on each image, post them separately. Sometimes one image can not convey the essence of a location or a subject. To keep Wednesday alive I it would be better to have more activity rather than less.

If one would like to get feedback, please specify that explicitly. Personally, I am a firm believer that I learn from receiving feedback. However, some people may get defensive, and feedback may discourage people from posting. As Ilkka says, we should encourage posting to keep these threads alive (although I am really just another photo.net member and I have zero contact with its ownership and management in these days, despite my 20+ years of history with this site).

 

Occasionally I see some images that would have been far better to have a vertical composition, but usually I hesitate to point that out because I am not sure how it would be received.

If you want specific feedback on each image, post them separately

Yup. That's what i do. Never tried more than 1 image per post.

better to have a vertical composition

We're back to that seemingly inevitable that screen formats are more letterbox like, ie 16 : 9 and still cameras maintain the 3 : 2 format. Both in landscape of course.

 

It's surprising just how 'almost square' old made-for-tv films and programs are when shown on a modern 16 : 9 'widescreen'.

Nowadays a lot of people hold their phones vertically and take videos. I think the widescreen format is poorly suited for rather narrow vertical videos. And if one posts a horizontal video on certain social media sites it is rotated to a vertical .... Where is the world coming to ...

 

I think 2:3 shape sensors are a good compromise as one can crop it into a more square or a more panoramic format without losing a lot of sensor area.

Edited July 17, 2021 by ilkka_nissila

I stopped posting from this size limitation

I stopped posting from this size limitation

That's just fine, but Shun is asking what we'd like... and you're just not saying!

I broke the rules a time or two but will agree with the final decision for format, image size and number of images allowed as I try to do with the nature forum.

Sorry I missed the party on this thread! I have to remind myself that unlike the days when we'd have 200 posts on Nikon Wednesday, our current Lost Tribe Of Nikon Users who join in every Wednesday aren't exactly loading the place up with dozens and dozens of files. My concerns about the folks with slow/small devices and low bandwidth mostly come from commercial web design considerations, as that's a venue where making people wait is a deadly sin. But we're all here to look at the handful of images that get posted every week, and it's fair to keep in mind this isn't random public visitors to a web shopping site or the like.

 

So having given this more though, Shun, my instinct is to leave the upload COUNT alone. One image, or two or three - whichever of those tells the story or feels like a well-rounded post ... that works for me.

 

On dimensions: the site's styling forces larger that 1000px images into "click to see bigger" mode, but it's still sending the whole, larger image to your browser, regardless. So a truly huge image is still getting downloaded by the visitor on every page load, even if it only appears as 1000px wide without a specific click. So that's a good argument for encouraging people to keep things relatively light, even they want to go over 1000px. I'd personally top it off at 1600 or so, I think. Some things that don't make the trip well at 1000 start to resolve better at 1600. But that also makes for more data, and it seems reasonable to encourage people to max out between 600kb and 1mb. Too many meg-sized files, and the page will be slower for folks on slower connections, on some VPNs, behind proxies or whatnot. So, moderation (as it were) in all things. Definitely no 1600x1080 JPGs at 100% quality, pushing towards 2mb on complex/busy images, that's just mean. But I for one will start playing with slightly larger files (both dimensions and data size) and see how it feels. Looking forward to more thoughts as we go forward.

 

Thanks, Shun, for poking the issue. It's definitely time to recognize it's 2021!

Thanks again Matt.

 

Our objective is to keep the friendly environment in Nikon Wednesday. Nobody likes to have their post or image deleted. A few weeks ago, A few weeks ago, I came across an image that is like 5000 x 3000 and 12M bytes. That is definitely too much for Nikon Wednesday. But I am not going to write some code to check the size of every image posted. As long as it is reasonable, we can keep Nikon Wednesday going smoothly. Personally I'll try to maintain the 1000-pixel limit myself.