« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 8 posts | 
by Todd Bauer on Sun Mar 13, 2016 10:13 pm
Todd Bauer
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1315
Joined: 26 May 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Member #:02032
There seems to be daily dialogue about this topic, and I was hoping that the owners of the site would like a chance to offer a detailed explanation as to why there is a need to click on an image, once it's over a certain size, to see the uncompressed view automatically. If it cost more to have it appear seamlessly in the sharper view, that's a perfectly reasonable explanation. (As most of us pay $45 per year, and some pay none, I realize that funds are not unlimited). But since we are indeed able to see them with a mere click, I can reasonably assume that the cost of an "Autoclicker" is not mind boggling, so perhaps that's not it. (I, for one, would be willing to kick in a couple of more bucks annually to "fix" it). Thanks.
Todd Bauer
Houston, TX
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Mar 14, 2016 7:36 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 86761
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Not all monitors have enough horizontal resolution to display the entire image so the initial view is sure to fit the entire image on the screen on any monitor - it gets scaled.
 

by Greg Downing on Mon Mar 14, 2016 11:19 am
User avatar
Greg Downing
Publisher
Posts: 19318
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Maryland
Member #:00001
EJ is correct - because we still have users with lower resolution screens we designed the last iteration of the galleries it to fit a certain width for initial view. We are working on making the whole site responsive to each screen upon opening but it will take some time and money to get there.

We've spent hundreds of thousands of dollars over the years updating and making the site work and we continue to invest tens of thousands every year into some of our back end as well as the new responsive store design which caused us to redesign the footer and header as well. To make everything work is more complicated than most imagine. We'll continue to invest and upgrade as time and funds permit. We've actually considered crowd funding to give us the funds to re-vamp the galleries and portfolios into something really amazing since membership barely pays the monthly server fees.
Greg Downing
Publisher, NatureScapes.Net
[url=http://www.gdphotography.com/]Visit my website for images, workshops and newsletters![/url]
 

by Todd Bauer on Mon Mar 14, 2016 6:14 pm
Todd Bauer
Forum Contributor
Posts: 1315
Joined: 26 May 2015
Location: Houston, TX
Member #:02032
I was fairly certain that there were sound reasons. I was absolutely certain "that making everything work was more complicated" than at least I could imagine. Thought that I'd give you folks a chance to explain your side of it. I'm completely satisfied, so for now, I'll just click twice. Thanks.
Todd Bauer
Houston, TX
 

by ahazeghi on Tue Mar 22, 2016 1:45 am
User avatar
ahazeghi
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6033
Joined: 25 Feb 2010
Location: San Francisco, CA
The default display size is way too small on a modern screen. I doubt if anyone who is serious about photography (majority paid viewer of this site?) use a screen that is less than 1920 pixles wide. If you use google analytic or the like to gather statistics about viewer screen resolution you must note that it is not accurate. It has to do with the way most web browsers report viewable are as opposed to true screen resolution. I made a test site and probed it with my home machine (3840 x 2160) and my laptop (1920x1080), google registered 1280 x 1024 for both cases, so it wouldn't surprise me if the stats were off...

With the kind of money you spent you should have a smart platform that can expand based on browser size, like 500px.com 

On a 4K/5K display the standard images look like a postage stamp. As these screens proliferate the site will become less attractive to look at... 
 

by Karl Egressy on Thu Mar 31, 2016 6:11 am
User avatar
Karl Egressy
Forum Contributor
Posts: 39506
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Member #:00988
E.J. Peiker wrote:Not all monitors have enough horizontal resolution to display the entire image so the initial view is sure to fit the entire image on the screen on any monitor - it gets scaled.

You can buy a good quality high resolution large size monitor for a few hundred dollars or even less.
This shouldn't be a concern when deciding on the pixel size.
I suspect that most people don't click on the image,
and they believe that it is inferior in quality as it doesn't show the true sharpness and resolution compressed.
I hope this issue will be reconsidered and will be solved to make this site more competitive.


Last edited by Karl Egressy on Fri Apr 01, 2016 9:52 am, edited 1 time in total.
 

by Tim Zurowski on Thu Mar 31, 2016 12:08 pm
User avatar
Tim Zurowski
Forum Contributor
Posts: 18881
Joined: 4 Apr 2006
Location: Victoria BC, Canada
I agree with Karl; i.e. that most people probably do not click on the image. I know I forget myself many times and judge the image and make comments based on the compressed view. I do not subscribe to the argument that many people have lower resolution monitors and therefore the images should be displayed in a compressed format. This is a serious photographer forum and the images should be displayed accordingly for serious and pro photographers. Perhaps make it the opposite and have a function to reduce the image for those that do not have monitors that can display the full 1280 pixel size. I know I have run into quite a few good photographers who say they stopped posting in the image galleries here because of the forced compressed image size.
 

by Greg Downing on Thu Mar 31, 2016 5:23 pm
User avatar
Greg Downing
Publisher
Posts: 19318
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Maryland
Member #:00001
As stated already we will be upgrading soon to eliminate this so it's not worth continuing to argue that point. In the meantime you can A. keep your images at 960 or less and they will be displayed uncompressed or B. click the images to see the compressed version. The last time we did a redesign up to 20% of the visitors were still viewing at 1024 wide and that was still the minimum standard width for most websites. I realize that has changed and that resolutions are getting higher. We know that. :) What we really need is for the entire site to be responsive to any device or screen size and we are working toward that - it's just going to take some time. Please be patient in the meantime.
Greg Downing
Publisher, NatureScapes.Net
[url=http://www.gdphotography.com/]Visit my website for images, workshops and newsletters![/url]
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
8 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group