PBase

Since the pbase compression algorithm is bloody awful, espeically if the photo is just over the limit on a size, I'd like control over what sizes the viewer has an option to select (in particular I'd like to present only original sizes). When the viewer comes into a gallery the size presented is not well determined, and they may not be viewing the images at their optimal resolution because of automatic compression. I have seen many comments in other forums on topics like "pbase pictures seem softwer, are they automatically compressing uploaded photos" etc.

I think the ability of the photographer to determine how their work is displayed, especially quality-wise, is an essential function for a photo sharing site.

Gene

Yeh good point, it would be nice to be able to turn off small and medium when you have gone to the trouble to make your photos most presentable in the original format.

keiththomson wrote:Yeh good point, it would be nice to be able to turn off small and medium when you have gone to the trouble to make your photos most presentable in the original format.

mmm... But, since PBase is a site to post pictures, is the viewer who decide what and how to see... I´m thinking about Modem users, that may could preffer watching medium size for instance...

I also can´t understand the difference between PBase compression algorithm and the picture you upload. Could you please show us the difference by postying a segment of a picture from pbase and another from your Pc directly?... I would really appreciatte that. Thanks in advanced.

matiasasun wrote:

keiththomson wrote:Yeh good point, it would be nice to be able to turn off small and medium when you have gone to the trouble to make your photos most presentable in the original format.

mmm... But, since PBase is a site to post pictures, is the viewer who decide what and how to see... I´m thinking about Modem users, that may could preffer watching medium size for instance...

I also can´t understand the difference between PBase compression algorithm and the picture you upload. Could you please show us the difference by postying a segment of a picture from pbase and another from your Pc directly?... I would really appreciatte that. Thanks in advanced.

Here is original:




Here is large:



As you can see the detail is washed out in the large, escpecially the eye

As for the viewer, yes, I believe in choice, but, and a big but, the problem here is the viewer will look at the large picture above and just think its blurry and lacks detail and won't know to look at the original (or even that they are not looking at the original).

Dial-up modems are a passing thing and I ceretainly don't want to base my galleries on something that is increasingly becoming insignificant. If the photographer posts images that are too large for dialup (not the case in the above), then he wil lloose that dialup viewer - that's the photographers choice (who is footing the bill after all).


Gene

mm... Yes. That´s a big difference... So, I will ask anybody who see this;
1. Wich do you think is the best software to compress? and
2. Wich is the size you should like to use in here? (800x600, 1200x900, more, less?)

And you´re also right in the matter of deciding wich sizes should be available. After all we´re the ones that pay for the exposition (and we´re the ones that shoot). So, if I understand correctly you´re saying we should get have the ability to decide the size of our pictures when somebody look at them?... please correct me if I´m wrong.

Maybe, for now, the recomendation of "PLEASE LOOK AT THE BIGGER SIZE (ORIGINAL)" could be a way to avoid people thinking the picture is not that great. I´ve seen many users using that; from the lego galleries, to the grafitti galleries...

Thanks for showing the difference.

Ps. Sadly, since a few months ago we all recived a letter saying that no more than 100 megas for each, I did reduce the size of my images delting the originals (plus deleted a lot of pictured completely). Now I have more than 120 megas free . And, due to the fact that most people are using even smaller sizes than original (to avoid somebody else steal their work), the creation of that feature could take a little more time than the usual... Just a tought.

matiasasun wrote:mm... Yes. That´s a big difference... So, I will ask anybody who see this;
1. Wich do you think is the best software to compress? and
2. Wich is the size you should like to use in here? (800x600, 1200x900, more, less?)

And you´re also right in the matter of deciding wich sizes should be available. After all we´re the ones that pay for the exposition (and we´re the ones that shoot). So, if I understand correctly you´re saying we should get have the ability to decide the size of our pictures when somebody look at them?... please correct me if I´m wrong.

Maybe, for now, the recomendation of "PLEASE LOOK AT THE BIGGER SIZE (ORIGINAL)" could be a way to avoid people thinking the picture is not that great. I´ve seen many users using that; from the lego galleries, to the grafitti galleries...

Thanks for showing the difference.

Ps. Sadly, since a few months ago we all recived a letter saying that no more than 100 megas for each, I did reduce the size of my images delting the originals (plus deleted a lot of pictured completely). Now I have more than 120 megas free . And, due to the fact that most people are using even smaller sizes than original (to avoid somebody else steal their work), the creation of that feature could take a little more time than the usual... Just a tought.

Yes. And I do have a disclaimer at the top of the page, but am not confident anyone sees it.

Cheers,
Gene

I would like to return to the question itself: User controlled gallery sizes and,
maybe also user controlled level of compression while downsizing the images!

While browsing photography posted by Slug, I observed that many of his galleries
have completely different set of sizes. Do not ask me now to find an example, sorry.
But the point here is that maybe Slug uses an already available option to name a
sub-size and to specify its characteristics.

I share this desire to specify sizes (and compression) by myself.

Thomas

I wholeheartedly agree with photographer control over image sizes. I've just run into this problem. I would really like to be able to limit viewing sizes or at least set the default for when viewers first look at my pictures. Right now the default seems to be large, which makes some of my pictures look pretty bad, compared to how they should be viewed, at 'original'.