Moderators: richierich, ua900, PanAm_DC10, hOMSaR
KICT wrote:It is my understanding that websites that weren't optimized for "Retina" / 4K displays were being penalized by Google et al. in search results. While the site re-design a few years back did fix that particular issue, people are still editing/uploading in lower resolution! It is a shame because I think this is one area that A.net and other similar sites could "compete" with social media. Folks buy all of this expensive equipment only to compress and edit it "down to size" as if it were 2004. A shame really...
Silver1SWA wrote:My time in front of a computer has diminished greatly. I hardly even use Photoshop anymore. I’m either using my iPhone X or if I do shoot with my D750 I usually just send to my phone via WiFi, tweak using Lightroom mobile and upload to Instagram. Seems to be the direction many hobbyists are going.
vikkyvik wrote:KICT wrote:It is my understanding that websites that weren't optimized for "Retina" / 4K displays were being penalized by Google et al. in search results. While the site re-design a few years back did fix that particular issue, people are still editing/uploading in lower resolution! It is a shame because I think this is one area that A.net and other similar sites could "compete" with social media. Folks buy all of this expensive equipment only to compress and edit it "down to size" as if it were 2004. A shame really...
It has historically been difficult to get shots accepted at large resolutions (say, larger than 1400). So not entirely photographers' faults.
Psych wrote:Thanks for the comments.
Something else I have now noted, having had a few 1600px photos just accepted: when I open up such images on the Mac, the large versions of the images are displayed relatively large on the computer screen - i.e. they have been significantly upscaled. The actual 1600px image is about half the size as that taken from the site itself). This results in the image not looking great - certainly not sharp. On my iPad - with a 2048 pixel screen (so plenty to accommodate a 1600px image) - click on the large version of a photo on the site and the screen only accommodates a half to 2/3rds of the image. So it is being upscaled once again.
Interesting that it is proving difficult to view images at top quality - certainly not the quality I would hope for, having put the effort into the editing process.
Paul
JKPhotos wrote:Still all I can say is that the process might be slowly but it is definitely improving, I mostly upload at 1.600 px or larger and didn't have "better smaller" in quite a while. And I did have conversations with screeners that were rather encouraging concerning " larger" sizes. So I could only encourage others to do so as well.
Personally even on my (not ultra-large) 1.920 px editing screen (and that's far away from Retina / 4K) I have touble to edit anything smaller than 1300 px as I don't see any details anymore.
It has to be noted though that others prefer to keep it small for copyright reasons.