Posted by Nick Saunders on January 30, 2010 at 12:52 PM
The issue of whether or not, one should or should-not post larger images, is something that has been a 'hot topic' in recent private correspondences.
Uploading an extra, 'larger' photo is entirely up to the individual , and is solely an option and most definitely not a requirement.
There could be several reasons for not wanting to upload a bigger file..
Some folks might worry about such a photo, being copied right off the site, or are not comfortable with the image quality of a larger file and would prefer that only a small photo be viewed.
These are of course, only examples.
The most common reason for wanting to post, or to see a larger photo on the site, is to view more detail, which isn't always apparent in a photo of only 720px.
The bottom line is , please do not feel pressured to upload a bigger file if you do not want to.
Posted by Nate Chappell on January 30, 2010 at 12:58 PM
Thanks for posting this Nick.
While I think it's fine to let a new member know that posting a larger version is possible, I don't think it's appropriate to ask the same member in repeated threads to please post a larger version (1200 pixel size) as they may not be comfortable doing so. We have received several emails from members who felt they were being "pressured" into posting larger versions and did not feel comfortable doing so. Also, it's worth noting that non members do not have the option to post a larger version, so asking them to post one doesn't make sense. Thanks.
Posted by Luke Ormand on January 30, 2010 at 3:06 PM
Thanks for posting this Nick. I know I have been guilty of "encouraging" others to post larger and while it may have been the first time *I* made the comment to them, they may have heard it from others which I'm sure could become quite annoying.
- Luke
Posted by Ron Dudley on January 30, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Nick and Nate,
Since this thread is from moderators and I'm assuming that this new wrinkle in posting "etiquette" is what is to be expected of us, I have a few questions.
1. Will this new policy (if that's what it is) apply across the board in all forums or just in Avian, since this post was made in Bird Photography?
2. If a member refrains from posting a larger image because the photographer "is not comfortable with the image quality of a larger file" is that a good reason for us not to request a larger version since this is, after all, a critique forum and larger images are a better indicator of many aspects of image quality?
3. If it's' "not appropriate" to ask a member to post a larger file, is it then "appropriate" for members to include in their critique comments such as "at this size, I don't think IQ can be adequately judged" or even to pass on critiquing such images for that reason?
Thanks for any clarification.
Ron
Posted by Nate Chappell on January 30, 2010 at 6:10 PM
Hi Ron,
To answer your questions I would say this.
1) It's not a policy, it's my and Nick's opinion of what the forum ettiquette should be. It hasn't been discussed with respect to any of the other forums.
2) How would you know whether the person was not posting a larger version because of the quality of the image? To answer your question properly would be to just say that posting a larger image is ALWAYS OPTIONAL. Therefore, it does not matter what the reason is for the person not posting a larger image, ANY reason that a person has for not posting a larger, optional image is a legitimate reason.
3) If a person posts a quite small version of a regular photo (let's say 500 pixels - or anything less than the 720 pixel maximum) I think it's fine to say "I'd like to see it posted larger - at the 720 pixel maximum. I make this comment on a regular basis. I agree with you that it makes sense to say "at this size, I don't think IQ can be judged adequately" for such small images. When I first joined NPN 640 pixels was the maximum allowed, it was then expanded to 720 and more recently the optional image was added. In my opinion, 720 pixels is almost always large enough to be critiqueable - if you view an image that you feel you cannot critique at 720 pixels because you cannot judge the quality of the image then you are welcome to pass on critiquing it.
Best,
Nate
Posted by Ron Dudley on January 30, 2010 at 7:14 PM
Thanks for the response Nate.
Of course, posting a larger image is ALWAYS OPTIONAL. I don't think anyone ever said or implied that it wasn't. Seems to me that requesting a larger version be posted next time doesn't suggest that they don't have the perfectly legitimate option not to do so. And, after all, the larger image is clearly referred to as "optional" on the posting page.
Typically whenever I've suggested in a comment that I'd like to see a larger version next time it was said to someone relatively new to NPN who might not know the value it has for critique. When an image is posted at 720 pixels by an "old timer" I usually just made the assumption that they had their reasons for doing so and didn't make the request. I think many others followed the same pattern.
But enough. I know how you feel on the issue. I will no longer suggest larger images.
This is the reason why I have been trying to upload larger files. Pretty much every photo I have uploaded, there are always a few comments saying they would like to see the photo in a larger size. However, as I have noticed with a lot of my photos on other sites, like Flickr, for example, they look so much better, and with greater details, when viewed in large or original size. So, I would have liked to post those here in a larger size, but that hasn't been working out for me. For some reason, NPN can never find the photo when I browse for it for uploading, but that's another story.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 31, 2010 at 8:43 AM
When we first offered the larger 1200 pixel upload option, I did have some concern that these larger files would be subject to unauthorized use. Therefore, they were always intended as optional at the sole discretion of the NPN member.
In terms of critique, there's no doubt that the larger file is preferred, especially when evaluating file sharpness and detail. Also, for those with uber hi-res monitors (and not everyone uses those), the 720 file can look mighty small. However, for most aspects of photo critique, such as composition, use of light, etc., the smaller 720 is certainly adequate.
My suggestion is to critique what is presented. I believe the 1200 pixel option is obvious enough on the upload screen that if the member wishes to use it, they will.
Posted by Ron Bielefeld on January 31, 2010 at 8:50 AM
If a person feels like they are being hounded to post larger images and they do not want to, all they have to state in their image post text is that I did not post a larger version by choice, so please do not ask for a larger version. If I read this in a post I certainly would not ask for one. In a lot of my posts, I specifically ask for people to view the larger image. Thus, I would think that people who feel hounded could easily request not to be asked for larger images.
Posted by Jim Erhardt on January 31, 2010 at 8:53 AM
If a person feels like they are being hounded to post larger images and they do not want to, all they have to state in their image post text is that I did not post a larger version by choice, so please do not ask for a larger version.
Ron, see my response above. It's not up to the member posting the photo to have to state that.
Discussion
9 repliesUploading an extra, 'larger' photo is entirely up to the individual , and is solely an option and most definitely not a requirement.
There could be several reasons for not wanting to upload a bigger file..
Some folks might worry about such a photo, being copied right off the site, or are not comfortable with the image quality of a larger file and would prefer that only a small photo be viewed.
These are of course, only examples.
The most common reason for wanting to post, or to see a larger photo on the site, is to view more detail, which isn't always apparent in a photo of only 720px.
The bottom line is , please do not feel pressured to upload a bigger file if you do not want to.
While I think it's fine to let a new member know that posting a larger version is possible, I don't think it's appropriate to ask the same member in repeated threads to please post a larger version (1200 pixel size) as they may not be comfortable doing so. We have received several emails from members who felt they were being "pressured" into posting larger versions and did not feel comfortable doing so. Also, it's worth noting that non members do not have the option to post a larger version, so asking them to post one doesn't make sense. Thanks.
- Luke
Since this thread is from moderators and I'm assuming that this new wrinkle in posting "etiquette" is what is to be expected of us, I have a few questions.
1. Will this new policy (if that's what it is) apply across the board in all forums or just in Avian, since this post was made in Bird Photography?
2. If a member refrains from posting a larger image because the photographer "is not comfortable with the image quality of a larger file" is that a good reason for us not to request a larger version since this is, after all, a critique forum and larger images are a better indicator of many aspects of image quality?
3. If it's' "not appropriate" to ask a member to post a larger file, is it then "appropriate" for members to include in their critique comments such as "at this size, I don't think IQ can be adequately judged" or even to pass on critiquing such images for that reason?
Thanks for any clarification.
Ron
To answer your questions I would say this.
1) It's not a policy, it's my and Nick's opinion of what the forum ettiquette should be. It hasn't been discussed with respect to any of the other forums.
2) How would you know whether the person was not posting a larger version because of the quality of the image? To answer your question properly would be to just say that posting a larger image is ALWAYS OPTIONAL. Therefore, it does not matter what the reason is for the person not posting a larger image, ANY reason that a person has for not posting a larger, optional image is a legitimate reason.
3) If a person posts a quite small version of a regular photo (let's say 500 pixels - or anything less than the 720 pixel maximum) I think it's fine to say "I'd like to see it posted larger - at the 720 pixel maximum. I make this comment on a regular basis. I agree with you that it makes sense to say "at this size, I don't think IQ can be judged adequately" for such small images. When I first joined NPN 640 pixels was the maximum allowed, it was then expanded to 720 and more recently the optional image was added. In my opinion, 720 pixels is almost always large enough to be critiqueable - if you view an image that you feel you cannot critique at 720 pixels because you cannot judge the quality of the image then you are welcome to pass on critiquing it.
Best,
Nate
Of course, posting a larger image is ALWAYS OPTIONAL. I don't think anyone ever said or implied that it wasn't. Seems to me that requesting a larger version be posted next time doesn't suggest that they don't have the perfectly legitimate option not to do so. And, after all, the larger image is clearly referred to as "optional" on the posting page.
Typically whenever I've suggested in a comment that I'd like to see a larger version next time it was said to someone relatively new to NPN who might not know the value it has for critique. When an image is posted at 720 pixels by an "old timer" I usually just made the assumption that they had their reasons for doing so and didn't make the request. I think many others followed the same pattern.
But enough. I know how you feel on the issue. I will no longer suggest larger images.
Ron
In terms of critique, there's no doubt that the larger file is preferred, especially when evaluating file sharpness and detail. Also, for those with uber hi-res monitors (and not everyone uses those), the 720 file can look mighty small. However, for most aspects of photo critique, such as composition, use of light, etc., the smaller 720 is certainly adequate.
My suggestion is to critique what is presented. I believe the 1200 pixel option is obvious enough on the upload screen that if the member wishes to use it, they will.
Again, critique what is presented!.