The 1024 Width rule

Phate

Phate

Phate

Caporegime
Joined
1 Nov 2003
Posts
35,691
Location
Lisbon, Portugal
Bonjourno passing Dons/anyone in particular,

I have to say, I'm not a huge fan of the forum rule of no images bigger than 1024, although I totally appreciate why it's put in place.

Specially as a photographer, I like seeing images as big as possible, as do my fellow comrades.

I propose an exception to the rule:

1) The 'post your pictures here' thread is exempt from this rule, anyone trying to view that on a phone and moaning it's taking long to load/difficult to look at is being a grade A noob and should be banned instantaneously from the photography sub forum. Lets face it, the hint is in the name, it's going to take a while to load regardless of what you use.

2) Only the photography Sub-forum if you put something in the title saying the images are over 1024 in width for example "***Big images***" or something else that can be agreed on so again mobile users know not to push their sausage fingers on it or if they do, to expect a bit of a wait. Spoiler tags are a nuisance.

What do people think in general? I've got a 27" display here and a 24" second monitor, looking at stuff in 1024 is borderline painful/annoying :p

Afterall, we do have the high res screenshot thread, people know the images are going to be huge so nobody moans, so why not have a similar setup here?

Thoughts/comments etc?

Cheers,
Jake
 
Link to bigger image, making your thumbnail clickable :p

On a more serious note.. I'm on a laptop with 1386x768 resolution, and having to side scroll (like I do for you recent submission to the pic thread) is a pain in the bum. :)
 
I'd rather not put anything above 1024 available online as its even easier to steal and use the bigger you allow people to gain access to. My photos only need to be viewed at a larger size if the scene is too complicated for 1024 to show the detail properly. Prime example is a photo in a woodland where all the leaf detail just turns to mush on anything but full size.
 
James J said:
I'd rather not put anything above 1024 available online as its even easier to steal and use the bigger you allow people to gain access to. My photos only need to be viewed at a larger size if the scene is too complicated for 1024 to show the detail properly. Prime example is a photo in a woodland where all the leaf detail just turns to mush on anything but full size.
Click to expand...

A lot of landscape work needs to be big to display the details and allow immersion.

Still, I don't put anything over 1024 online, tat way even if the image is stolen it is not so useful and I have the larger version to prove copyright (RAWs help but you can convert a jpeg to RAW if you want).
 
D.P. said:
A lot of landscape work needs to be big to display the details and allow immersion.

Still, I don't put anything over 1024 online, tat way even if the image is stolen it is not so useful and I have the larger version to prove copyright (RAWs help but you can convert a jpeg to RAW if you want).
Click to expand...

Thats fair enough and your choice but what for those who DO want to put bigger stuff online? :)
 
D.P. said:
A lot of landscape work needs to be big to display the details and allow immersion.

Still, I don't put anything over 1024 online, tat way even if the image is stolen it is not so useful and I have the larger version to prove copyright (RAWs help but you can convert a jpeg to RAW if you want).
Click to expand...

Yeah landscape photos are one of the genres of shots that the bigger the better. People stealing photos is a massive issue though when uploading things online and its a double edged sword as they need to be online to get noticed and viewed but can also be stolen at the same time. Finding the right combination of size and quality is hard, especially when the photos are for sale lol.
 
I disagree, the 1024 rule should stay. It keeps the thread tidy and with people using Flickr, Imgur, 500px, etc, it's not an issue as they all generate BB code for you automatically.

Also helps when at work when I'm stuck with 1280x1024!
 
stupid rule change and your arguments for it are hardly inspiring.

The current rule should stay and people should just learn to use hyper-linking if they want to flaunt their images here.
 
What's stupid about it Martin?

I'd like to see a proper counter argument if you're going to come up with an aggressive reply like that.
 
iamtheoneneo said:
stupid rule change and your arguments for it are hardly inspiring.

The current rule should stay and people should just learn to use hyper-linking if they want to flaunt their images here.
Click to expand...

My Galaxy S3 is 1280 x 720 when in landscape mode - how long do we stick with 1024? Until 1024 pixels is nothing but a mere thumbnail?
 
We're looking at implementing a mod that auto-resizes, which can then be enlarged when you click on it.
It's kept at 1024 for people who are on laptops, tablets and phones.

Specific threads can be exempt from the rules - I don't have an issue with the post your pictures thread being included here, so I'll flag it up with t'others and let you know. I'm not sure about having multiple threads that can have large images though.
Please see it from our point of view too - it can't be one rule for some and then another rule for the rest, otherwise people complain about consistency in moderating :p
 
Maccy said:
We're looking at implementing a mod that auto-resizes, which can then be enlarged when you click on it.
It's kept at 1024 for people who are on laptops, tablets and phones.

Specific threads can be exempt from the rules - I don't have an issue with the post your pictures thread being included here, so I'll flag it up with t'others and let you know. I'm not sure about having multiple threads that can have large images though.
Please see it from our point of view too - it can't be one rule for some and then another rule for the rest, otherwise people complain about consistency in moderating :p
Click to expand...

Thanks Maccy :)

I completely appreciate why its done I just think if people are given a fair warning, IE something in the thread title to state the image size then people can be fully prepared.

Also, it being a photography forum people like to see big images, not walls of external links or thumbnails or small images :p

I was working on 51" of monitor space last night, it was painful :p
 
There's a hi-res screenshot thread in the PC Gaming section, so precedence has already been set. It is separate to the old standard res though, which is also what I think should happen in this case.

Just have a look at the Hi-res thread to see how unwieldy\slow it is, not everyone has screens over 1920w. It's great to have the option for those that want it, but I'll be honest in that I wouldn't have much interest in it.
 
I'm not saying have HUUGGEEE images, just bigger than 1024w :p

1280 or 1440 even would be ace.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom