jpatokal

<b>Josh</b>: No, photo.net is on the wrong side of this. Flickr, Zoomr, deviantART, Picasaweb etc do not restrict image resolution, only the image size and/or total storage per user. If you're concerned about server load, why not take a page out of Flickr's book and restrict availability of full-size images to subscribed users? (Although they only restrict downloads, not uploads!)<p>

 

<b>Kelly</b>: photo.net already limits the images you are shown by default to 680x680. You will never see a larger image, be it 1500x1500 or 3000x2000, unless <i>you</i> choose to click on the image to enlarge it.<p>

 

In your own words, "One should size the images so they load quickly and do not have to be resized; and provide a link so somebody can download a huge file if they want to; ie a 2 decade old policy." -- and that's <i>precisely</i> what I want to do, and it's what every other photo sharing service out there does, but right now that's not possible on photo.net.<p>

 

<b>Lex</b>: Then I suggest you stop using photo.net, because it <b>already</b> does "automatic image resizing".

That flip page is <b>incredibly</b> annoying, especially since even us paying subscribers are being subjected to it. I would not have renewed my subscription last month if it had been there, and I'd be cancelling right about now if there was any way to get my money back.

I'm perfectly capable of resizing photos in Photoshop, thank you. I just don't understand why <b>I</b> need to

manually futz around with creating a separate copy just for photo.net, when it would be trivial for the site to

do the scaling automatically. The site already uses internally generated <700px scaled-down versions as the

"normal" display size anyway.<p>

 

In addition to avoiding hassle, there are plenty of reasons to upload pictures larger than 1500px. 1500px is

already too small to cover the entire screen on a standard 1600x1200 monitor, which means that it's too small to

be used as a desktop background/screensaver/slideshow. It's also too small for anything larger than a 4"x6"

print. Yes, I understand that there are people who don't want to release high-res images out of copyright fears

or whatever, but there are also plenty of people who do want to share them.<p>

 

By all means keep the 3 MB limit if you're concerned about disk space, but I just see no reason at all for

forcing images under 3 MB -- like my 3008x2000 originals when saved as JPG -- to fit to some arbitrary resolution

restriction.

The FAQ at http://www.photo.net/frequent-questions doesn't appear to have been updated in ages; in particular, it

says that photos should be "less than 100k in size, and no larger than 800x600 resolution", with an editorial

comment about "trying" to get it changed.

 

But what's up with the new, equally random 1500x1500 limit, which is the reason I was looking at the FAQ in the

first place? My camera is 5 years old and it produces images twice that large.

 

A response would be appreciated, as I did just sign up for a three-year extension to my nine years hanging around

here...

A belated thanks to everybody who contributed. In the end I picked up a cheap Nikon 70-300mm 1:4-5.6G and backed it up with a tripod, a combination which served me fairly well when I needed it -- or <a href="http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/travel/Zambia/SouthLuangwa/">what do you think</a>?<div></div>

Thanks for all the suggestions. However, before I even start thinking about exactly which model to spring for, I would be interested in hearing which <i>approach</i> (that is, one size fits all, or two lenses with one dedicated telephoto) you would go for and why.

Greetings,<p>

 

I bit the DSLR bullet last year and got myself a D70 with the standard

18-70 kit lens, with which I've been happy with in all respects except

one: 70mm just isn't enough for me, because I often find myself

snapping away at an architectural detail on the 3rd floor or somebody

in a rowboat across the river. But I generally don't do sports or

animals, so I don't need massive telephoto, and I lug everything on my

back, so I'd prefer not to carry any more than I need.<p>

 

Based on this and a semi-arbitrary budget of $500, my current thinking

is to go for one of two options:

<ol>

<li>Get a "super zoom" to replace the kit lens entirely

<ul>

<li>Obvious pros: Only one lens to carry around

<li>Obvious cons: Some loss of optical quality, and the range the new

lens can cover is limited compared to a dedicated telephoto

<li>Strongest contender: <a

href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0405/04052101sigma18-125.asp">Sigma

18-125 DC</a>

</ul>

<li>Get a second zoom in 50-200mm range

<ul>

<li>Obvious pros: Serious telephoto opportunities

<li>Obvious cons: Two lenses to carry around and the hassle of

swapping them

<li>Strongest contender: still exploring the numerous options...

</ul>

</ol>

Teleconverters I've pretty much ruled out due to metering issues.

Opinions on the relative merits of the two approaches would be much

appreciated.<p>

 

Cheers,<br>

-jani

My tip: Wat Si Saket in Vientiane has 6840 Buddhas, large and small, broken and whole, crude and refined, clothed and bare, in gold, silver, bronze, iron, wood and clay. <a href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder?folder_id=467062">Photo ops galore</a>, although it's a little dim inside so a tripod will come in handy.

photo.net's CSV files do not seem to include data for photos uploaded

with "do not submit for critique" (== make public) checked, even if

the setting is later changed with Edit Image Info. Could this be

fixed so that the portfolio owner, at least, can download CSV data for

<B>all</B> their pictures on photo.net?<P>

 

An example of a folder that shows the problem can be found <A

href="http://www.photo.net/photodb/folder.tcl?folder_id=244707">here</A>,

and the reason I find this a problem is <A

href="http://jpatokal.iki.fi/photo/best.html">here</A>. (Yes, I plan

to release the source code for that once I've got it tweaked to my

liking and documented.)

Greetings,<P>

 

Hitting the "email alerts: edit" link in my Workplace results in

a long delay and then:<P>

 

<B>Server Error<BR>

The requested URL cannot be accessed due to a system error on this

server.</B><P>

 

It's been like this ever since I became a Patron 2 years ago, I just

haven't bothered complaining before. And while I'm at it, how

about an option to get e-mail alerts for <I>all</I> comments posted on

your own pictures?