I see lots of entries that seem to have nothing to do with the theme but they stay in the contest.

If the voters like the pictures what difference does size make.

Since adherence to theme isn’t that strict.

0. I always have to downsize them to share.

1. They really are slow to load over the internet. I have DSL here, the fastest option available.

2. Phone photos are valid. I have taken some great ones. But contest or no contest, I don't want to overwhelm someone else's nice photo.

So, given (0), perhaps an arrangement such as people already do voluntarily is fine. Just don't post anything over 2 or 3 megabytes, since everything renders automatically.

That's enough to show some great detail, and small enough to load speedily ( unless you post a big gallery all at once )

It's also roughly the size of a screenshot I grab for sharing. Doing so also drops the EXIF data that sometimes contains serial numbers and precise location data.

My 2 cents worth.

DU resizes it 1024X768 72 DPI

I'm also going to take this opportunity to address some of the complaints concerning the fairness of the August contest.

It's been stated in the post-contest comments that the second and third-place photos broke the sizing rule. Here's a screenshot of my third-place entry on Imgur.



According to the dimensions provided by Imgur, my entry didn't break the rule. On my laptop it "looks" larger than some of the other entries, but on my iPhone it doesn't. If I broke the rule, it wasn't done intentionally for advantage. Larger photos are actually at a disadvantage if they don't fit the viewer's screen. I want the entirety of my photo to be in view without scrolling.

A larger photo will also magnify a photo's imperfections. My photo isn't in sharp focus because it was taken through a dirty windshield. That imperfection would be less noticable in a smaller image.

It's also been stated in the post-contest comments that vertical photos might have an unfair advantage. Mine was the only vertical entry. I used the best orientation for the shot and took great care in the cropping and framing.

Please allow me to clarify something. I stated that I thought that vertical photos sometimes have an advantage. I DIDN'T SAY THAT IT WAS AN UFAIR ADVANTAGE. To the contrary, framing, composition and vertical or horizontal framing is all part of the creative process, and I applaud you for using vertical framing in this image. In my opinion, it definitely improved the photo,

What I have noticed is this. There have been times in the past when I have entered horizontal images that I thought were sure winners. However, if it's a very wide format, e.g. 16x9, the height of the photo is squeezed down a great deal to accommodate the width. That seems to lessen the impact of the photo on cell phones, but that was my decision and I stuck with it. The picture just looks tinier, and I think it hurts my chances in the long run, but that was a creative decision that I made.

I try to consider how the photo will look on both a cellphone and a computer screen when I select my entries.

As I stated before, I knew your image was oversize when I posted the preliminaries. Believe me, at least half of the entries missed the requirements for this contest. That's why I think we don't really need them. I would have spent a huge amount of time contacting everyone to replace their entries. I had a feeling no one would notice the difference.

I should have reread your comment before posting. I apologize, Grumpy, I got it wrong.

I don't take these contests too seriously. But today, when I read the polling post, it weighed on me that my photo, along with the second-place entry, is the reason for the fuss. During the contests over the past year I've noticed what might have been violations of the rules and guidelines: photos that looked oversized and others that looked heavily processed. There have been entries that didn't come close to keeping with the themes. But I can't recall there being any complaints until now. Has this happened before?

People vote for what they like in our friendly contests. In a juried contest there might be some objective standards for the quality, but a photo's emotional appeal can't be measured in technical terms.

Maybe there was a good reason for a sizing rule in the past, but now it seems arbitrary.

I don't think we should take them too seriously. I like the fact that folks with little photographic experience often enter just for the fun of it. So what if a pic doesn't quite fit the theme, or has a little too much saturation? It's not rocket science, and we're not handing out cash prizes. It's just a way for our fellow DUers to enjoy some distraction for a few minutes every month. Heck, we usually can't even get thirty entries, and have to open it for second entries. Why would we turn anyone away?

However, it is amazing how emotionally invested I get when one of my photos is in the running for first place. Likewise, I get dejected when of my pics gets creamed in the competition.

My own personal feelings, I'd like to see more participation from new folks, and less worry about restrictions that may discourage them from entering.

JMHO! Let's try it for a month and see how it goes.

Grumpy

and sometimes get 5 votes with them.

Really, you can never know what people will like. And often in this contest, it has nothing to do with the quality of the photo. Dogs seem to get far more votes than they would based on quality.

I think I'm going to start photoshopping dogs into all my shots! LOL!

(just kidding).

the next contest will be "Dogs" so no one has an advantage.

dogs playing cards is forbidden.

I entered this landscape a few years ago, thinking it was a sure winner. It didn't do anywhere near as well as I thought it would. I've come to the conclusion that it was just too wide, and by the point where it was displayed on a cellphone screen it just wasn't very dramatic. However, there was nothing unfair about that. This was a creative decision that I made, and I stuck with it.

Or in a juried contest.

People vote for what they like. They also vote for their friends, or to gain friends, or to prevent someone from winning. There are some that I'm certain vote for last-place entries so that no one feels left out.

Taking human nature into account, I can't feel too bad about losing. But I would object to any notion that I'd cheated or that the photos I post aren't my own.

I like your landscape. I don't know what you could have cropped without losing some of what is most appealing. There's room for cropping on the right, but If you tighten the width and lose some of the grasses bordering the bottom edge of the pool, the pool would look squeezed. You can't sacrifice any more of the sky. I think you made the right decision for this photo. Winning wouldn't make it any better and losing doesn't make it any less of a fine photo.

My estimation of the percentage of oversize entries was too large. I stated that about half of the entries were too large. To be honest, ten of the entries, one third, were too large in terms of file size, dimensions, or both. Just wanted to be honest about it. One third is still a lot.

or increase them to allow for wider photos.
But I do think extra large photos will have an unfair advantage over smaller ones.

I am an artist, and juried contests always have their rules. Nature of the beast. Part of the fun is finding a picture that looks good at the posted size.

I have some panorama pictures I would love to use. But I accept that they don't work within this contest's size rules.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the browser squeeze them all down to the same viewing size anyway? I think the only real advantage of a larger file would be resolution, i.e., sharpness.

You might be right. Hadn't thought of that.
In that case, I think doing one contest without the restriction is a worthwhile experiment.

So I uploaded the same photo at a higher Res. to see how it would look in a post.



Seems to make no difference in the size in the post.

squeeze them all down to 800 px wide. This is where the vertical ones ones often end up appearing larger on screen

The issue isn't what size you post, it's what size someone sees. That isn't determined by a resized or not resized file. It is determined by your monitor and the operating system that presents an image at the largest size that the screen will accommodate. There's nothing any of us can do about that.

Because the monitor displays the horizontal dimension to fill the screen a vertical sized to 1024 will show as a 2 mp image on a 1080p screen. Rotate that same image to portrait mode and the display will show an image that looks 50% larger.

An 8k screen displays any image at the equivalent of 33mp.
A 720p screen displays at .9mp.

Post a picture resized to 1024 on the long side and it will be presented as 1280 at the smallest size. Post an image that is 5,665 on the long size and it will still be seen as 1280. The only caveat here is that if an image is only 300 p on the long size the image at 1280 may appear to be pixelated. Larger images are downsized to fit the screen.



The largest display currently available is 8k. That will present a 33mp image faithfully. 4k will present between 8mp and 4mp depending on the version of 4k you have.

It isn't the size you post, it's the size your monitor shows you. A small monitor will not make a big image look better but a huge monitor can make a small image look worse. There's nothing any of us can do about that.

*disclaimer: This presentation is oversimplified. Please let us not go further into the weeds to minutia.

I think we can reach an optimum size that will look good on most monitors.
I mean how many DUers read the site on 4K or 8K monitor.
And th posts don't take up the whole screen anyway. How many people view the photos in a new tab to see the full size. Not many, or any I would guess.

When I look at the photos, I often right click and select to view in a new window. That lets me see the photo at the originally posted size )or within my screen limits as the case may be.

Maybe we put that suggestion out there to viewers to suggest 'for full enjoyment of these photos, try..."

The vertical images that now will be bigger might have an advantage.

Here are two images, one is 1500 x 2000, the other is 2000x1500

I took photos of the same scene, one in landscape and the other portrait

Same resolution, but one will clearly look larger when posted.

I'm hoping things turn out the way we think they will.

works best for me now that I know how to re-size my photos[I use "Imgur"].And i,m not opposed to others posting their photos any size they like.Its all for fun and sharing our pics.I,m Looking forward to the next contest.
Thank you everyone.

The problem with oversized imagesfor me is the load time. I get internet via satellite and it has a monthly 'usage' limit - go beyond it, and I might as well be back on dial-up until till my monthly roll-over date comes along.

I fully understand the desire to display as perfect an image as possible, though. There's an online astronomy forum I've been in for almost 20 years, with lots of excellent astro-imagers. Just like many folks here, they (rightfully) want viewers to see their images at the best.

We've had many discussions through the years regarding image size. The solution reached was for the imagers to post down-sized images in the group, and include a link for the full-size image on their web page (or image stash site). It's a win-win.