Nikon Wednesday Pic comments

[marklcooper]

<p>Me again;)</p>

<p>Just did another quick perusal of top rated pics by # of ratings, by # of comments. Checked this week's P.O.W. Listed top rated photos of all categories of all time sorted by # of comments. It's a Street photo, no title, picture of a guy holding a "Hungry..." sign by Aldo De Filippi. 2,119,151 views, 333 comments, 146 ratings, was a P.O.W., 74,877 Kb and 512 x 768 pixels.</p>

<p>I checked a bunch of photos. The biggest (Kb-wise) was Crater Lake by Marc Adamus at 268,712 bytes and 600 x 363 pixels. Most were under 100K. A very few were over 200K.</p>

<p>From travelphoto.net</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most pictures can be brought down to 30-50 kb (from 7-40 megabyte!) for 600*400 pixels without any problem. Photos containing very intricate textures may need more, but 100 kb should be the absolute maximum on the web!</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>From Bob Atkins on http://www.photo.net/learn/resize/</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Ideally images should be under 100Kbytes in size and you can adjust this with the JPEG settings in the "Save for Web" dialog box</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I don't see that we gain any benefit, <strong><em>for web display only with a max of 700 pixels on the long side</em></strong>, by having JPG's any larger than 150K.</p>

<p>What I'm getting from this thread is that the majority of people posting on Wednesday Pic think the system is not broken and shouldn't be messed with. I'll go along with that. I also like that I can post my pics on Friday or Saturday because of limited Internet access. We do have to realize that happy moderators are our friends. Lex and Shun do their work for us on their own time and without compensation. I suspect they get more joy out of participating than they do from moderating and all that it entails. I really would not like to see them close the thread because it is really starting to eat into their free time. A maximum of 2 minutes (give or take) to load the thread seems reasonable when you HAVE to do it. Whoever is moderator HAS to do this. I see Lex moderates 3 forums. It would be interesting to know how many threads a day he deals with....I don't mean to put you on the spot here Lex. I suspect Nikon is one of the higher volume forums.</p>

<p>To close, can we try to come to a consensus to all do our best to keep our JPG's at 100K or less, with an <strong><em>occasional</em></strong> splurge to 150K for that absolutely perfect 1 in a 1000 shot?</p>

<p>I'm done. I think.</p>

<p>Mark </p>

[jose_angel]

<p>Please check the difference between 300Kb and 100Kb on the same pic. I have used my WeD PiC #23 master, TIFF uncompressed file (700x524, 1.34Mb). I cropped the images, then "Save for web" option in Ps Elements at the desired compression ("maximum" -98 out of 100 for an aprox. 300Kb image and "high quality" -60 out of 100- for an aprox. 100Kb) image).<br>

<br /> Displayed at <strong>left 300Kb</strong> crop, <strong><em>right 100Kb</em></strong> crop.<br /> <img src="http://a05-b05.mypicturetown.com:80/P2PwebCmdController/cache/tgA_jxtNQC0f%269OYz6t28SDg.xa5xmX*lTFK*c9clQ.KTyZ4fD-pW5APW%3DlG.Na/item.jpg?rot=1" alt="" width="226" height="334" /><img src="http://a05-b05.mypicturetown.com:80/P2PwebCmdController/cache/rALMMVzn-c3G314DImwxUgH2HpEknU%26zdAq2dmB4ORiVi2rfK1ewyUexm3ztarW/item.jpg?rot=1" alt="" /><br>

<br /> Do we really need to post <strong>over 200Kb</strong> images? (Please keep in mind that some screens are very sensitive to viewing angle variations).</p>

[jose_angel]

<p>About the commenting stage, as some have mentioned, <strong>if brief, better</strong>.</p>

<p>Looks like current WeD PiC threads shape could be somewhat of a nuisance for some, even with the possibility of scrolling down or not reading them... to those of us who like to comment perhaps we should try to mention just a very few favourites. Personally I feel special affection for those who are extremely kind commenting many pics, I use to read them all and love it, but I can understand the thread becomes <em>phisically</em> too long for some users (in fact complaints about long downloading times and thread extension has been originally concerned to this issue) and probably moderators will not have an extra load.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Jose,<br>

thank you for the examples. In my opinion, if we all do our homework and "save for web", there is no reason for posting larger that 150Kb pictures.</p>

<p>As for the texts. I find I learn a lot from the comments as well, so I hope that the size of the thread is manageable to most of us if we reduce the images size, to start with.</p>

[luisarguelles]

<p>My to cents here: I basicaly agree with Jose Angel. I admire the work of those that have some words for everybody, but I understand the problem of overloading for some people. From my part, I like to comment about 10 pictures or so. This doesn't mean I comment the 10 better ones (I have never been a good judge for photography, and I'm specially a disaster judging my own pictures!) but only the ones that have catched my eye. Anyway, I'm already eager for tomorrow pics.</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>This is copied from the last standard upload page here at photo.net, when the text is uploaded, and you are asked whether you have any pictures to attach:</p>

<blockquote>

<p>If you wish your image to show up as an image and not a link, the maximum file size is 100 KBytes (full-size images from digital cameras won't work).</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If size is such a problem, why should our Wed.Pic. threads be allowed 300 KBytes? Tomorrow is a new Wed.Pic thread. If we promise each other to post max 120Kb, maybe we will stay clear of the problems in the future...</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>If you comment on only 10 or a few pictures there will be a lot of folks who get no comments. Some of our great artist will get multipliable comments (well deserved). <br /> This will kill the feel good and learning experience for some. This is what makes this thread special. Folks work hard to get a special photo to post on Nikon Wednesday. The <strong>Public</strong> comment in the thread is the <em>"pat on the back</em>" as other have put it that makes it all worth it. <br /> The encouragement that newer photographers get is priceless. Much different from that the critique and rattlings forum. Its out in the open where a large number of people see it, not attached to a photo buried in a portfolio. <br /> And even better yet, all the banter back and forth is bringing people closer and together as friends. Its not happening elsewhere on photo.net like this.<br>

work on the photo size to save a little bandwidth. but otherwise I don't think anyone really minds that the thread may take a little longer to load. I have not seen any complaints till this discussion started.</p>

[rwreich]

<p>Would it be more reasonable to simply lock the thread (no new posting) after 11:59 PM on Wednesday. I wonder what the statistics would show for postings not on Wednesday? Your thoughts?</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>I'm getting the impression that some folks are a bit too anxious about making sows ears from a silk purse here. We're not going to suck all the fun out of the Wednesday Pic threads merely by discussing these issues. I enjoy these threads as much as anyone here. They're an asset to the forum, something I've affirmed publicly and privately many times this year.</p>

<p>I'll try to summarize and address a few concerns that have been raised here. Then we'll move on to the next Wednesday Pic thread. I trust you folks to use your best judgment in consideration of these concerns.</p>

<p><strong>File sizes</strong> <br /> We're not suggesting that it's necessary to decrease file sizes to lower limits that would degrade quality. We're only asking folks to stick to the 300 kb upper limit. As Mark's stats indicate, and my own spot checking shows, a significant number of participants are continuing to exceed the 300 kb file size.</p>

<p>Sure, make them smaller if possible. But use your own best judgment in deciding on file sizes up to the 300 kb limit. 75 kb or smaller may be plenty for some photos but would create unsightly posterization in a blue sky or sunset. Personally, I consider it an interesting challenge to use the smallest possible file size that doesn't degrade quality in normal viewing online.</p>

<p><strong>Format</strong> <br /> The photo.net format is what it is. Moderators don't have the ability to change that. The site isn't built on shake-and-bake software like some newer sites you may be accustomed to. We can't modify the threads to create a transparent interface between photo-laden threads and commentary. What you see is pretty much what you get. The discussion forums weren't designed to gracefully accommodate dozens of high resolution photos and thousands of words of commentary. So we make compromises.</p>

<p>Why should we accept those compromises? Easy. Google your name and the word "photo". Or my name. Or almost any photo.net member's name. You couldn't buy that kind of Google prominence if you built your own business website or personal blog from scratch. If you're a pro or serious amateur who wants an opportunity to build a reputation, this is that place and that opportunity.</p>

<p><strong>Recent photos</strong> <br /> I'll exercise the moderator's prerogative here. The issue of recent photos is not up for discussion and won't change. We're discussing and cussing one core issue here: Accessibility. The policy on recent photos is clearly explained in the guidelines and has been reiterated here - recent activity is encouraged but not mandated. These conditions were discussed months ago and we got consensus on them. When you participate in the Wednesday Pic threads you've given tacit agreement to those conditions, same as any participation on photo.net.</p>

<p><strong>Accessibility</strong> <br /> This is the key issue, the one that I'm primarily concerned about: Ensuring the Wednesday Pic threads are as accessible as possible to the entire Nikon Forum community.</p>

<p>This is why we haven't imposed a specific time window deadline for submissions. Some folks simply are too busy until the weekend. So we've tried to keep the submission window open, at least until Sunday.</p>

<p>Not everyone has a fast computer or fast internet connection. My goal is to keep the forums, including the Wednesday Pic threads, accessible to all. That means we'll all make compromises to achieve that goal. That includes the very generous file size limit and our request to exercise some restraint in comments.</p>

<p>Regarding complaints, you don't see many of them here for a couple of reasons. For one thing, I've deleted some non-constructive or misplaced complaints about the threads so most participants never saw them. Moderators are available via e-mail to resolve problems that are better handled privately. Most of the concerns and complaints I've seen regarding accessibility of these threads have been handled privately. This enables you folks to enjoy these threads while we deal with the hassles behind the scenes.</p>

<p>Finally, I'm going to plug the photo.net critique system again. You folks have developed a rapport that proves the critique system can work. Why not build on the networking already established here? Use it to connect with each other on your portfolios to offer constructive critiques, using the tools photo.net has already provided.</p>

<p>Some folks have said they're discouraged by the way photo.net's critiques and ratings systems have run (I emphasize "systems" because they're distinctly different entities). I can understand why. There are a few cliques that essentially dominate the TRP. Well, how do you think they accomplished that? Exactly the same way many of you have connected here, in the Wednesday Pic threads. Same way camera clubs and other arts groups have formed for generations. Use the social networking skills you've shown here. But use them beyond just these threads. You can help make the provided critique system work better if you choose.</p>

<p>Photo.net has provided the resources. You folks have developed the rest on your own through enthusiastic and constructive participation. It's up to you to develop it beyond these weekly threads.</p>

[graham_thompson1]

<p>Because it is popular and the format works the Canon guys might like the same. The Leica guys will want to show off their new American powered, assembled in Germany M9's. The problem seems to be bandwidth and speed of connection to our beloved Lex. Is it a question of money to put this right and keep everyone happy? It could be made subsciber only but that would preclude a lot of good people who don't have the money right now. Anyone any idea as to the cost of technically making this right? Or is there another problem. Maybe some of us would be able to help out even though it's tough times.<br />Not because I seek thanks or friends ( I am a happy little grumpy miserable troll) I'll put up 10 subscriptions (Tax deductable!) and sort out with Lex how we do it - Maybe others could do the same - come on Nikon, B+H and others put a bit back in the pot.</p>

[jeannean_.]

<p>Joseph, I agree. However...</p>

<p>Mark L Cooper wrote:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>WedNEsDAy Pic (no offense to Jose...he had a wonderful idea and I fully support his intent) has evolved to a mutual admiration society. Let's quit with the "thank you for commenting on my post' stuff and get back to giving a more detailed treatise on what works or doesn't work for those pics that grab our attention for whatever reason.<br>

<><br>

I really appreciate real, constructive comments on anything posted to the various forums I follow. I long ago gave up on the photo critique forum where folks 'supported' each other. I'd like real, constructive critiques.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>While I don't think the Wednesday thread is the place for "real, constructive critiques" (from what I can tell, it never was), it appears from what I've been reading, others also feel there are too many praise comments, thank yous, etc, so maybe we all could refrain from making comments about how much or why a certain photo caught our eye, and keep the words to technical details, stories, questions about a particular aspect of a photo, etc. If someone would like "real, constructive critique", they could ask for it along with their photo post. This could be done by those who choose to do it in the requester's personal portfolio (also helping the critique system as Lex suggested). Rarely is there a solution that will make everyone happy, so compromise is be the best we can do. I'll try my best to do my part.</p>

<blockquote>

 

</blockquote>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>Maybe I'm very stubborn, but I keep going back to If it not broke don't fix it. <strong>Why do we need to compromise on something that was working perfectly?</strong><br /> Every pot that is cooking could be stirred up, but does it need it. You know that too many cooks spoil the pot<br /> I think that I've already said too much on this subject.. Sorry about carrying on.<br /> Now let me go go get something ready for this Wednesday thread. Somehow some of the joy is missing already. I bet that this weeks thread is going to be different. I'm sure that there will be less comments.</p>

[markd2]

<p><em>If you wish your image to show up as an image and not a link, the maximum file size is 100 KBytes (full-size images from digital cameras won't work).</em></p>

<p>That's only for photos uploaded via photo.net's software. Many of the photos posted come from off-site, and so can be of any size. I'm sure egregious abuses get moderated.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Joseph, if everyone shared the perception that it's working perfectly, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are perceptions that some problems need to be addressed, which have been specified in this thread. But a constructive discussion with the goal of problem resolution shouldn't diminish the enjoyment. Our goal is to make it work as well as possible for everyone.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>Regarding file sizes... it's tricky because photo.net doesn't actually screen out certain things automatically. It's very labor intensive for the moderators.</p>

<p>It doesn't matter whether photos are hosted off-site or attached directly to photo.net, they still take time to load. It's not a matter of server load for photo.net, it's a matter of how long it takes for photos to load on our personal systems.</p>

<p>On most forums there is no built in filter that automatically screens out oversized photos (file size, not dimensions), whether attached directly to the thread or embedded from an off-site host. That notice regarding 100 kb maximum file sizes is obsolete and hasn't been functional on this forum for a long time.</p>

<p>The only filter that works automatically is to limit photos displayed inline with the threads to 700 pixels wide. Larger dimension photos attached directly to the threads will appear as links. But a photo can be 700 pixels or less in width and still be grossly oversized in file size. I've seen some small JPEGs that were 1 MB or larger in file size.</p>

<p>Also, photos embedded from off-site hosts are often not resized to fit photo.net's 700 pixel width limit. You can usually spot those photos immediately. Photo.net resizes the dimensions rather gracelessly, producing harsh jaggies and posterization. And those are the photos that often exceed the 300 kb file size as well.</p>

<p>Earlier this year I e-mailed around a dozen folks to remind them about file sizes. After that I simply deleted oversized photos with e-mailed explanations. Naturally, those folks were unhappy. I invited each to resubmit resized photos but only a few did so. I haven't done that for a few months but may need to consider it again. </p>

<p>But I'm hoping folks will check their own work so we don't have to. Because this is a community space - rather like a public park - we each must take responsibility for how we use that community space so that all may enjoy it. There are fewer such constraints on our photo.net portfolio spaces, which can accommodate much larger photos, with each page containing only one large photo rather than dozens. That's a more workable solution for lengthy dialogs and critiques.</p>

[sjoerd_leeuwenberg]

<p>Just a few comments about this interesting thread:<br>

I agree with joseph and some others that it IS working great for a lot of people.<br>

<br />I also think the main problem is with the size of some of the images. 200Kb should suffice. And I can imagine that in a database it doesn't matter whether it is a picture or text, but then it also shouldn't matter how much text it is. I do understand this puts an ever bigger burden on our great commenters. But I think that not many trolls will post 20+ lines of comments and maybe we can share the load by not replying to a troll-post or unappropriate post but to send a mail to one of the moderators. In that way we all contribute to the moderation a bit.<br>

If I had a slow connection I would wait a bit longer or get a faster account. It is worth it.</p>

<p>I do agree that the thanking the thanking gets a bit out of hand sometimes and I'm sure everybody knows how much comments are appreciated. Especially from the bulk commenters.<br />Although sometimes I get frustrated when I 'only' get comments from them. But that just means I need better pictures. I think nobody will dislike constructive comments at all. I would like to see more of that only when the picture really needs it.</p>

<p>Maybe a bit rough, but I think that people that don't want to see the comments in the way it was, they should a) post and look in NW threads or b) just scroll. But that is just my view. Many people have already (automatically) adapted the commenting to the friday or so and this means all the 'big' comments are at the bottom and there won't be many pictures there. So people not enjoying long comments can stay clear from that part of this fantastic forum.</p>

<p>I think a separate thread for the comments could work. Provided a direct link is available. But I think it is not needed because of the smaller filesizes and a bit longer wait. For the moderator this shouldn't matter, since (I imagine) he checks the comments thread as well. Commenting on each photo individually won't work I think, because it is a lot more work and clicking, and the rest cannot learn from the comments on other pictures. I think this would largely kill the thread as it is. An extra page after the first fills up could work, but won't help lex's work and everybody will still be waiting the same time in the end. With a single page the pictures that you have seen before are already in the cache anyway.</p>

<p>Maybe everybody can add a text line to it's next post, showing how long last weeks thread (after clearing cache) took to load, picture size and a small line about how many/what kind of comments they would like. I'm sure Mark Cooper can make a list of the results. and I do believe he needs help!!!<br />I'm glad Jonathan Matter has volunteered to help him with the statistics.</p>

<p>About the 'freshness' of the pictures: I think the idea is good but many times it is hard to always have a fresh picture. As long as the spirit of sharing and learning/improving is there.</p>

<p>Did I say 'a few'? hmm, well, just my one cent. And to everybody reading the whole thread, we are already well over 16000 words.</p>

 

[jannekaakinen]

<p>It seems that what we need most is more self regulation, mainly with file sizes but with other thread rules as well. I think Jose has done a great job in his opening posts trying to encourage participants to compress their photos to a smaller size (and even greater job for starting these threads and keeping them going on). 300 kb is good limit, 200 kb would still be OK, but I agree with Ilkka that lower than that would not be good for some of the photos posted here.</p>

<p>While I'm not that worried of the downloading times of these threads (or have we as people grown so impatient that we can't wait a minute or two), I'm more concerned of the workload these threads create to the moderators (Big thanks to Lex and Shun for the work they do). I wonder if we indeed could have a <em>deputy Wednesday Pic moderators</em> , like someone already suggested, who would take some of the workload off the shoulders of Lex and Shun (and who would report any problems directly to Lex and Shun when they appear in case the system dos not allow thread limited moderator rights)? I promise to volunteer at the second I get my life and work sorted out in a way that can find time for that. :)</p>

<p>Other than that I would imagine that a separate thread for comments might be worth of trying. It would be a bit easier to have the photo-thread and comment-thread side by side in different tabs/windows if those two would be separate entities. While this would not help with the workload, it would help with the download times. And putting the images to personal portfolios (WedNEsDAy PiC gallery folder?) is an idea I will follow and see how that works.</p>

<p>While everything I might have to say on this subject has probably been said (read it through in a hurry while working), I still had the need to add my 2 cents to the discussion. Why? I blame the the sense of camaraderie and feeling of belonging in to this PN-Nikon-community we have here, and those Wednesday Pic-threads have been a big part in creating those feelings. I, like many others here, feel that in personal level this matter has some importance. Before I joined to Photo.net I never ever had published my photos before, and only handful of people had seen my photos. While these threads have been blamed for being somewhat "mutual admiration"-threads (with what I agree to some point), I believe we (at least those of us who are not confident pros) need this kind of threads/forums. Like I said in a Wednesday Pic-thread few weeks ago, through these threads some of us get at least some kind of feedback on what is positive in our photos, and for some of us this might be the only place they get any feedback from peers. While I agree that true critique is more valuable in general than a "pat on the back", a pat every now and then can give some of us a real boost and make dive deeper to the world of photography. I say let's keeps these threads as "mutual admiration"-threads, since there is a need for those too, and keep in mind that there are other places here in PN for "true critique". I for one would like to get the best of both worlds and what Lex suggests here is something worth looking into, how to combine these two things. And it would be great if we could extend this mutual appreciation and feeling of community to other parts of PN too and get the critique forum working for us too. I think that the ball is at our court now. I too promise to try my best to do my part to get the Wednesday Pic-threads to evolve to the next stage.</p>

<p>P.S. And thanks to those who commented my photo, your kind words are highly appreciated. The thread was full of great shots again, sorry that I could not comment them before the thread was closed. :)</p>

[pcnilssen]

<p>Referring to Jannes post, I'd like to help.<br>

If Lex & Shun would like to create such "Deputy Wednesday Pic Moderators" I'd be happy to be considered for such a position, for a period to come. I guess that there are many others who want to spend some of their time to take this lovely forum even further.</p>

[liljuddakalilknyttphotogra]

<p>OK forum - to start with - My Oh My Oh My - if I'd only known what I'd start..... But lets start by accepting the simple fact - - our Wednesday thread is super popular & is a very positive influence on the forum & a lot of us. I learn a lot from it personally & love traveling the globe each week with the rest of the forum. Always brings to mind that I wonder where we're all located..... I always wonder that....<br>

Anyhow - in regards to sizing.....<br>

I have this morning taken time out to test one IR photo I took last week in anticipation of this week's thread to see what the result would be for me. So this is the result I got.<br>

First up - I had to do another test earlier in the year with the help of Lex to ensure I got the correct size for the thread. I find that for me to get an acceptable presentation size I need to save my shots in between 800-850 pixels. This due to Zenfolio's resizing of shots. I save that size & I have a reasonable size presented in the thread. Too small & the shots simply don't carry the message. Please think of this those of you who present tiny photos.<br>

Secondly - I today created three versions of the same shot. One under 300Kb, one under 200Kb & one under 100Kb - please remember that I need the shots to be 800-850 pixels on the widest side. The under 300Kb shot looks fine. The under 200Kb size looks very much the same. But - the just under 100Kb looks distorted already on Zenfolio. There is simply no way I'd ever present a shot looking the way that one does.<br>

If anyone wants to see the result - Here's the gallery<br>

http://lilknytt.zenfolio.com/p858490508<br>

Mind you - this is an IR shot, not even color. Something to keep in mind.<br>

So - I will be glad to attempt smaller comments. And if people want to comment on my page instead - I will be glad to leave the link to the shot. No problem for me.<br>

But - if we have to reduce our sizing to below 100Kb - - count me out. :-( I will not ever present something I'm not happy to present. End of story.<br>

Thirdly - someone brought up the suggestion to have someone help out to moderate the thread to lessen the burden on Lex & Shun. I would imagine most of us know that we can at any time contact Shun or Lex in regards to any "problems" with any thread. If not - I'm sure they will be glad to have us report any problem should they have missed it.<br>

We all make mistakes. I certainly started off with a bang. ;-) I do believe I fast got an e-mail from Shun about something I'd done wrong. Something about a lens I was planning to sell if I'm not wrong. Many of us have probably stuck a foot in our mouth at some point or another. ;-) As the expression goes. Things happen. I do every now & then & sure wish I could take things back.<br>

So if Lex & Shun feel they need help to moderate the thread - I'm sure there are people to help.<br>

So many good comments have come out of this thread - but I see a trend that most like the thread as it is. Now we have to see what Shun & Lex want to do.</p>

<p> </p>

[doug_santo]

<p>I think Lex has told us what he wants to do, see Lex's post on this thread at 9:28am. I hope there will be no moderator posse.</p>

<p>We do not need more moderators.</p>

<p>We do not need more rules.</p>

<p>For myself, in future contributions I will exercise common sense in the application of the guidelines set out by Lex in his 9:28 post.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<blockquote>

<p>However, I am considering setting up an actual poll to get some data.</p>

</blockquote>

<p><strong>best idea yet.</strong> Striking that so many people suggest solutions without knowing what the real problem is and even if there is a problem. The problem isn't that a few people post photo's above 300k other than that they neglect a guideline (most likely unwillingly). There <strong>might</strong> be a problem for some people as far as connection speed is concerned but while Lex hinted at having received some complaints about that none of us has any idea about the extent, if any, of such a potential problem.</p>

<p>That's not a sound basis for a meaningfull let alone a informed discussion. So what are we discussing here? Frankly I don't know. So either both mods set some new guidelines in place for whatever reason they see fit or that poll is done so that we actually know what we are discussing about and if actually something needs to be fixed.</p>

<p>On the other hand Lex is right that such a forum is not the best place for feedback and the best solution would indeed be if those photos would be accesible through peoples portfolios. It's actually great that so many people take the time and effort to adress every photo(grapher) but, and Matt already hinted at that, is that it soon becomes a trap because people start expecting that.</p>

[oskar_ojala]

<p>Just my 2 cents:</p>

<ul>

<li>The 300 kB limit needs to be a hard limit. There all kinds of limitations to the thread (needs to be SFW, pics need to be max 700 px wide, posting occurs on Wednesday) and the size limitation is just something we have to live with. Refer people to a helpful tutorial on file sizes. Ask admins to make a very simple script that shows you if some image was over the limit.</li>

<li>Restrict postings to the Wednesday when it's active. This shouldn't have a significant impact, but should take care of further moderation.</li>

<li>As for verbose comments, there needs to be some self moderation. And sometimes it's a bit awkward, like I may see something that I like but I don't want to add a new comment when I already have a pic in the thread. Or someone comments on my post and I may want to comment back but my schedule dictates only one or two visits to the thread (Wednesdays are busy for me due to work). It would be nice to have some sort of agreed on etiquette in order to not step on people's toes.</li>

</ul>

[tri-x1]

<p>I firmly believe all websites should be mindful there are a lot of people out there that because of location and/or cost are still on dial up. Given the time it takes this thread to load now, when I'm using 1.5 Gig DSL, if I was trying to access it at 56 kps I would give up. It's not just a matter of a "couple of minutes" in a case like that.<br>

As to worrying about picture quality being compromised by files under 300 or 200 kb. Come on folks. This is the internet. A lot of folks, even on p.net, are using low end graphics cards and monitors and don't even calibrate their screens. If an image is properly processed, I seriously doubt that one in 100 viewers can tell the difference between a 60 kb and a 300 kb file. I think that once in a blue moon I have a really good image to display but have never thought that it would look that much better on the average computer screen if the file was four or five times larger. That's the sort of problem you should worry about if you want to make a 16x20 print to hang on the wall.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>Just a vote for continuing this weekly joy. It is the one thing on Photo.net that I actually look forward to. What an inspiration some of these shots are. The talent varies, but that is part of the joy. Anyone can submit. My only downer is that on the East coast of the United States, that I do not get to see the thread until I am home from work in the evening. It is often too late to even think about contributing.</p>

<p>For what it is worth, I have a Time Warner cable hookup. Faster than some DSL, slower than those with a fraction of a T1. It seems a shame to keep the column at the limit of some lowest common denominator. Reductio ad absurdum would tell us that a dial up hookup would mean essentially not to look at photos at all. Does a slow DSL line act as the sphincter determining what all can see? If folks are posting images with too much content, would it not be possible to put a filter on the posting page that would gently reject such postings with some instruction to the poster as to what to correct?</p>

<p>As to over the top text, I really dislike having to cruise by those posts where someone feels that a kudo is due virtually everyone who has posted an image. Scores and scores of meaningless comments in a single post? There is no way that I am going to read a never ending laundry list. Pointed comments? Sure. Then there are the greetings. Helpful? Harder to say. They are public comments but they really are intended for just one or a couple of recipients.</p>

<p>The images are at the heart of what is inspiring, along with the photographer's comments on what inspired the shot, the location, and some of the technical details. Critical comments, very much yes. Other egotistic chit chat, banality and just joyful noise? Not so much so.</p>

<p>It does require some kind of consensus to accomplish some restraint.</p>

<p>Thanks for listening. Dave Ralph</p>

[marklcooper]

<p><strong>Wayne C</strong> - You've nailed it. Like your web site. Interesting how you linked your gallery back to your photos stored on photo.net.</p>

<p><strong>Lil</strong> - I looked at your 3-photo example in your gallery. I bet I scrolled back and forth 10 times between the 3 photos before I could detect the difference. I finally noticed the difference...mostly on the front of the structure in the lower left corner. I looked at them at their largest size. I could see a very subtle difference between the <100 and the <200. Not so between the <200 and the <300. I'm using my fairly modern laptop with it's built-in screen. I was running Vista on it til last week when I installed Windows 7 Pro, so it's not a slouch video wise. But still, nothing special. I realize you keep your pics on Zenfolio so friends/family can see them and comment on them without registering. </p>

<p>I view the pictures on Wednesday Pic to expend my way of seeing. I like seeing what equipment is used. I love seeing the photos from all over the world. It's great.</p>

<p>I have dial-up at home. No broadband available except for satellite, which is not an option for technical reasons (read VPN). So unless I have a true customer emergency that can be solved via dial-up I don't even take my laptop out of it's case while at home. I live 1 hour SE of Columbus Ohio, home of Battelle, OCLC, Nationwide Insurance, Limited Brands, CompuServ (since bought by AOL), Cardinal Health, and many more. You would think broadband would be available so close to such a huge corporate/IT center.</p>

<p>I've been in the computer consulting business since 1978, the same year I purchased my first Nikon. I've seen how the same photo renders differently on different monitors. Is your calibrated colorspace going to be the same as mine? Will the same online photo render identically on Safari, Opera, Chrome, IE 7 & 8, Mozilla, Epiphany, and others? The answer is no.</p>

<p>You can have the absolute best focussed, sharpened, color-corrected photo possible, but it will be limited by the hardware and software used to view that photo on the receiving end. Why send a bunch of extra info down the pipe when it really won't make much of a difference viewing-wise, but will have a cumulative affect to those of us without a fast connection?</p>

<p>I'm posting this now at one of my clients' office. We have a T1. With no one else using the connection we're lucky to get 1.4 Mb/sec down link. But, we have approximately 20+ users and 5 or 6 servers sharing this connection. This is in addition to the 4 or 5 road warriors who connect in to our network from remote locations...all over the same connection.</p>

<p>To the folks commenting that others said I needed help compiling my statistics, the original comments were suggesting I needed psychiatric assistance;). Not technical assistance.</p>

<p>Keep Wednesday Pic as is. Try to keep your JPG's under 100K unless the content dictates otherwise. Enjoy. Don't fret about us folks that can't post on Wednesday (and which side of the Dateline are we considering Wednesday?). Don't worry that all monitors are not created equal or are not calibrated the same. Speak up in the thread if a pic really trips your trigger/floats your boat/whatever. If you have something regarding Wednesday Pic that you really have to get off your chest and you think it will generate a fair amount of discussion, start a new thread. Lex and Shun run a pretty benevolent co-dictatorship.</p>

<p>I had a temporary moment of insanity a month or so ago regarding the different Nikon camera models represented in the Wednesday Pic thread and rather that insert it into the Wednesday Pic thread I started a new thread. I think it worked well. I don't think the separate thread caused any undue pain and agony for anyone.</p>

<p>I apologize in advance to the folks that use English as a second language for all the slang I used in this post. </p>

<p>I'm really, really, really done with this topic. I think Lex has pretty much put it to bed now also.</p>

<p>Mark</p>