+Dr.Torque Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I would really love to see the limit for max. size and max. pixels per image increased for premium members. The 600pix. 125KB per image limit only generates dull low resolution pictures. So why not increase the limit for PM’s. I suggest the new limit to bee 1932pix. and aprox. 220KB file size. Would be another reason for non members to join. Dr.Torque Link to comment
+ShadowAce Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 We have found that by editing the images in Photoshop prior to uploading them we can make them much larger for other cachers to see. I normally edit them down to 800 - 900 pixels on one side and save it with a setting of 5 for compression. This affords me a decent image as well as a larger upload. I know this is not the solution you wanted, but maybe it will help you until your suggestion comes around? That image is on this log : Pine Mountain See if this will help you? Link to comment
+JeremyR Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 (edited) Realistically the file size limit is a bit higher than 125KB; you can get away with about 160-170KB before it gets reduced. So long as you're below the file size limit, the system won't alter the dimensions whatever size they are. I regularly upload at 800x600px, which seems about ideal to me. (edited for clarity) Edited October 16, 2007 by JeremyR Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I would really love to see the limit for max. size and max. pixels per image increased for premium members. The 600pix. 125KB per image limit only generates dull low resolution pictures. So why not increase the limit for PM’s. I suggest the new limit to bee 1932pix. and aprox. 220KB file size. Would be another reason for non members to join. Dr.Torque Keep in mind that some of our fellow cachers are still on Dial-up. Also - the average display is still just 1024 x 768 or 1280x1024 - your suggested size would cause considerable scrolling for many. Link to comment
Neos2 Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 I would really love to see the limit for max. size and max. pixels per image increased for premium members. The 600pix. 125KB per image limit only generates dull low resolution pictures. So why not increase the limit for PM’s. I suggest the new limit to bee 1932pix. and aprox. 220KB file size. Would be another reason for non members to join. Dr.Torque Keep in mind that some of our fellow cachers are still on Dial-up. Also - the average display is still just 1024 x 768 or 1280x1024 - your suggested size would cause considerable scrolling for many. Bolding is mine---I agree with that statement. I don't see why anyone wants to post an image so huge that "most" of us can't see the whole thing at once, anyway. It actually makes the image less attractive to me. If I love your photo so much I need a ginormous print of it, I'll email you and beg you to send me a copy. Link to comment
+Dr.Torque Posted October 16, 2007 Author Share Posted October 16, 2007 THX for the 800x600pix hint. Will try this in the future. But still there is the problem with the file size. On pictures with a lot of detail in it (like a lot of trees or a bird) the jpg compression algorithm is weak. So one will have to use a compression rate of 2 or 3 in photoshop which leads to really poor results like this one: For all fellow cacher still on dial up lines it would be cool if one could configure weather pictures are downloaded per default when visiting a log in the personal profile. Dr.Torque Link to comment
+Prime Suspect Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 For all fellow cacher still on dial up lines it would be cool if one could configure weather pictures are downloaded per default when visiting a log in the personal profile. Shouldn't that work for all pictures, not just pictures of the weather? Link to comment
+JeremyR Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 But still there is the problem with the file size. On pictures with a lot of detail in it (like a lot of trees or a bird) the jpg compression algorithm is weak. So one will have to use a compression rate of 2 or 3 in photoshop which leads to really poor results like this one: I think that photo looks pretty good though. I guess that the problem from Groundspeak's point of view is that photos can be very bandwidth hungry so they have to strike a balance. Personally, I think they've got it about right; you can get very nice photos (including that one) into the logs within the ~170KB. Link to comment
+StarBrand Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 THX for the 800x600pix hint. Will try this in the future. But still there is the problem with the file size. On pictures with a lot of detail in it (like a lot of trees or a bird) the jpg compression algorithm is weak. So one will have to use a compression rate of 2 or 3 in photoshop which leads to really poor results like this one: For all fellow cacher still on dial up lines it would be cool if one could configure weather pictures are downloaded per default when visiting a log in the personal profile. Dr.Torque I think that photo looks pretty nice myself............ Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted October 16, 2007 Share Posted October 16, 2007 There is a visible difference in the quality of photos if you put one next to the other. I know that messing with the photos before uploading the pics will make a difference, but it's hard enough to upload my gazillion pics already. I'm not going to add to the difficulty, I'll never upload anything! I figure if they're pictures that I think need to be seen better, that I'll just upload them to my flick account. Link to comment
+Dr.Torque Posted October 20, 2007 Author Share Posted October 20, 2007 @JeremyR and @StarBrand I know that the picture of the bird isn't that bad. But still compared to what quality one can reach at other sites its not good at all. Especially when considering that sites like this one Fotocommunity are free and PM's at Groundspeak are paying (a small amount, but still..) for the service. Link to comment
+JeremyR Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I know that the picture of the bird isn't that bad. But still compared to what quality one can reach at other sites its not good at all. Especially when considering that sites like this one Fotocommunity are free and PM's at Groundspeak are paying (a small amount, but still..) for the service. Yeah but geocaching.com isn't a photo hosting service. The primary focus of the site isn't (and shouldn't be, IMO) the photos but the cache listings and data services that go with them. Link to comment
+Indotguy Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 Yes, regrettably some of us are still on dialups, besides, this is a Geocaching website. I don't believe it needs to compete with high resolution photography sites. Link to comment
+Miragee Posted October 20, 2007 Share Posted October 20, 2007 I would really love to see the limit for max. size and max. pixels per image increased for premium members. The 600pix. 125KB per image limit only generates dull low resolution pictures. So why not increase the limit for PM’s. I suggest the new limit to bee 1932pix. and aprox. 220KB file size. Would be another reason for non members to join. Dr.Torque YIKES!! If this were implemented, I would never be able to open any cache pages with images on the cache page, or look at anyone's gallery. I live in a rural area where my dialup connection speed is 24K. Dialup is my only option, other than satellite, and I cannot afford that . . . Link to comment
Recommended Posts