Maximum Image Size Change

Chris Kilroy · 02-21-2012, 12:37 AM

Hi everyone,

I'm pleased to be able to announce a fairly substantial change in the maximum image size limit for landscape-oriented images here at RailPictures.

Going forward, the maximum image width will be 1200 pixels, vs. the previous maximum of 1024px. With larger monitors becoming more and more common, we feel that 1200px is quickly becoming the "new 1024" standard. We introduced 1200px uploads at JetPhotos a couple weeks back for all members and it's been very well received. About 80% of uploads are coming in at 1200 now.

With the increased resolution in mind, we've also changed the maximum filesize of uploaded images to 2 megabytes (2048kb) vs. the old maximum of 1mb.

Of course, we are aware that some folks would prefer to continue to upload at sizes ranging from the minimum of 800px up to the old max of 1024px, for reasons of theft prevention, etc., and you are free to do so. The only change is that photos up to 1200px in width will be accepted now.

Thanks for your support, and if you have any questions, please don't hesitate to drop me an e-mail or PM!

troy12n · 02-21-2012, 01:21 AM

Will you now take wider aspect ratios?

Greg P · 02-21-2012, 01:25 AM

Excellent.

Can we resubmit previous accepted at the new level?

Chris Kilroy · 02-21-2012, 01:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Greg P

Excellent.

Can we resubmit previous accepted at the new level?

I meant to mention that - thanks for the reminder!

Yes, you can resubmit older shots at up to 1200px wide.

Chris Kilroy · 02-21-2012, 01:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

Will you now take wider aspect ratios?

As in photos cropped to be more narrow vertically? No.

Dennis A. Livesey · 02-21-2012, 02:32 AM

Thank you Chris!

Coloradorailfan · 02-21-2012, 04:49 AM

Great to hear Chris!

Joe the Photog · 02-21-2012, 01:37 PM

I appreciate the change, Chris. Thanks.

Hatchetman · 02-21-2012, 01:55 PM

A good move I think.

JimThias · 02-21-2012, 01:57 PM

For those too lazy to do the math, 1024 x 683 is now 1200 x 800.

JRMDC · 02-21-2012, 02:31 PM

I wonder what size at which to do verticals? I have been doing x900; expanding that by the same factor gives x1055. But it may be that there isn't that much more vertical space on a monitor anyway; the larger diagonals (19", 21") seem to be mostly or completely coming from more width and no increase in height. I think I will stay at x900.

milwman · 02-21-2012, 03:29 PM

I kind of wish not that I have stitched photos but now we can go 1200 wide would 1200 X 450 to 600 or something work?? I would like to see some New things tried.

JRMDC · 02-21-2012, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n

Will you now take wider aspect ratios?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Kilroy

As in photos cropped to be more narrow vertically? No.

Quote:

Originally Posted by milwman

I kind of wish not that I have stitched photos but now we can go 1200 wide would 1200 X 450 to 600 or something work?? I would like to see some New things tried.

Scott, your question was already asked and answered.

milwman · 02-21-2012, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Scott, your question was already asked and answered.

No, he didn't, He says no standard photo cropped low and long. I ask if they will do them at some point. The same old formats are ok but I think there is room on here for a stitched category at some point is all I ask.

JRMDC · 02-21-2012, 05:42 PM

1200x450 and 1200x600 are "wider aspect ratios" and I personally thing Chris was quite clear. Why would it matter if you get there by cropping a standard photo or stitching two together? Stitching is supposed to be invisible to the viewer; it isn't a separate category, just a different technique.

milwman · 02-21-2012, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Why would it matter if you get there by cropping a standard photo or stitching two together?

Stitching gives you clarity and big files, Cropping your just lopping the top or bottom off. Just something for him to think about.

JRMDC · 02-21-2012, 08:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milwman

Stitching gives you clarity and big files, Cropping your just lopping the top or bottom off. Just something for him to think about.

So does a camera with bigger MP, which is not a requirement for RP uploading. That is an issue of image quality only.

You are missing the logic, completely. It doesn't matter whether you get to a particular format, 2:1 or whatever, by cropping an original from a low MP camera, cropping an original from a high MP camera, stitching two originals from a low MP camera, or stitching two originals from a high MP camera. To an RP screener, it is still an image that does or does not fit the preferences of the site. You are asking about a shot that is wide and not so tall, however it got to be that way, and the answer has already been provided.

Ron Flanary · 02-21-2012, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Kilroy

Of course, we are aware that some folks would prefer to continue to upload at sizes ranging from the minimum of 800px up to the old max of 1024px, for reasons of theft prevention, etc., and you are free to do so. The only change is that photos up to 1200px in width will be accepted now.

Thanks, Chris. Not that my crappy old shots matter, but I heard a report that some sleaze was actually selling prints at a Virginia train show last weekend pirated directly off RP.net. He hadn't even bothered to remove the copyright bar along the bottom!

The higher resolution one uses, the greater the likelihood you'll lose control of "your" image forever. I would be reluctant to post anything I took that was "terrific" on RP if I thought someone would hijack it. Greater resolution, unfortunately, makes that more likely.

For those reasons, I'll probably just stick to my old fuzzy size standards.

mark woody · 02-23-2012, 07:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

I appreciate the change, Chris. Thanks.

I like the change, gives a feel you are there. Thanks Chris.

lock4244 · 03-07-2012, 04:35 PM

Can you start accepting shots taken on cloudy days that are of common power?

Hatchetman · 03-07-2012, 07:41 PM

Those 2 MB photos really look A LOT better.

CN Railfan · 03-08-2012, 01:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman

Those 2 MB photos really look A LOT better.

Very true, it's excellent!

ddavies · 03-09-2012, 07:22 PM

My monitor is 2560x1440 ... which is probably why I kept getting rejections for image size.

crazytiger · 03-09-2012, 09:08 PM

David, go with 1200x800...

ddavies · 03-09-2012, 10:46 PM

Actually, I'm talking about years ago. RP never stated exactly what vertical measurement was minimal. I don't like to show a lot of sky or grass just to satisfy the limits, so most stuff I shoot, I never submit anymore. Mostly HD format or wider.

Common power anyway, http://members.trainorders.com/ddavies/News/news.htm