Honest question:
Why is there a need to resize photos on /p/ if it is concerned with all photography? Wouldn't you want to post your work in all its HD glory if you had a high-end camera? I don't see OC threads on /hr/...
>>2772669
Because if you're looking at my sharpness and fine detail at 100% then you aren't looking at my photo.
>>2772674
?
explain please
>>2772677
?
I just did.
>>2772677
>pixel peeping
>gear fags
>>2772669
because most anons don't want to spend their bandwidth on snapshits.
Because a long time ago, moot used to host different boards on different servers. Slower, lower traffic boards were hosted on cheaper, slower servers. /p/ was one of those, and loading times used to be pretty slow (but not terrible). It became sort of an unwritten board etiquette to post stuff at 1000px or less. 4chan has long since been hosted on a single, much faster group of servers, but somehow it got codified in the sticky by the worst photographer on the board and now a bunch of morons repeat it like it's the word of god because of the wonderful tautology that "it's in the sticky!"
There's also the idea that your work might somehow be valuable, and posting full-sized images online without obvious, hard-to-remove watermarking is the equivalent of leaving the keys in your car's ignition. Posting at 1000px somewhat lessens the chance that your photos will be used somewhere without your permission, although if someone really wants to do it, they're going to do it.
You can post your photos at whatever resolution you want. The sticky doesn't constitute board rules. IT wasn't written by moot, and the mods can't enforce it. All you'll get is a bunch of fuckboys bitching at you, but they're easily ignored.
resizing for viewing hides your technical flaws and forces people to see it as intended: a photograph
you can also sharpen for display at this resolution for optimal clarity instead of whatever a browser puts out when it resizes your 24 megapixel image to fit on the screen
nothing posted here will be worth viewing at 100% so don't waste anyone's time with it
>>2772669
because the poorfaggots with telephone internet and the talentless fucks trying to compensate.
>>2772696
It was.
>>2772708
It wasn't.
>>2772669
>HD
kek
>>2772688
>If I'm not looking at your photo, then what am I looking at?
muh megapickles. such DR, so color process, much pro photogear.
It's because if you cared enough to resize it, you probably cared enough to carefully select your best photos and process them.
The people who post their giant 5 megabyte files almost invariably post the absolutely shittiest photos on /p/.
It also teaches noobs to pay attention to framing and composition, instead of "look how sharp and noise-free my new DSLR is over my iphone!"
Also, the servers are still fucking slow. I get between 30 and 50Mb/s down on my line, yet a 4MB image on 4chin takes 10-15 seconds to fully load. I'm not going to wait that long to see a snapshit of your cat, so I'll just not load it at all if it's larger than 1MB.
>>2772688
>If I'm not looking at your photo, then what am I looking at?
If I post a photo, I want you looking at the subject, the mood, the content. I want you thinking about what has been expressed, or captured. I want you to imagine walking in the scene. You can't do ANY of that if you're zoomed in to 100% on a full res post looking at pores and bricks and looking for chromatic aberrations, and fine sharpness. Also, nearly all of the critique one can get right now is equipment based as it is, but giving technicians that level of scrutiny over your photos is a literal invitation to completely ignore anything you were trying to do, and focus only on your choice of equipment and handling.
the question is not "why don't you post full size" the question should be "what would you possibly gain by posting your photo full size"?
>>2772677
the closer you look the less you see
people who post here are not concerned with pixel peeping, some of the best photography in the world is slightly out of focus.
Were concerned with your composition, framing, and the feeling your art is trying to invoke.
>>2772892
>people who post here are not concerned with pixel peeping
I'd say the opposite. I'd suggest that most people here are ONLY concerned with pixel peeping, and in order to stop them from doing that, and try to encourage them to look at your whole photo, you have to make it impossible to be technicians about your images.
I fail to see how 1000x1000 or slightly larger isn't enough to display an image properly.
I also don't want my photos pixel-peeped, or to be told my moment-unrepeatable photo is no good because there's a minimal amount of blur on somebody's finger. Go ahead, say I'm not here to be critiqued.
How do you guys know that you're going to get pixel peeped if you've only ever posted photos at 1000px? Also, you guys realized that photos are meant to be scrutinized, right? Or do you only ever print at 4x6"?
>>2772781
Ahhhhhh,
I didn't know you were making a rhetorical point. thx
>>2772996
>Also, you guys realized that photos are meant to be scrutinized, right?
Why would that be the case? Why would I spend all the time needed to find a scene, to find the best angle, to wait for the light, to wait for the right people to walk into the scene, etc. Why would I do all of that only to show it to you and have you instantly blow it up to full size to see if it's in focus enough for you to not say something about it?
>How do you guys know that you're going to get pixel peeped if you've only ever posted photos at 1000px?
>Also, you guys realized that photos are meant to be scrutinized, right?
Which is it? the implication that it won't happen? or the suggestion that it should happen?
If you can only see it in the photo at full resolution, then it's not important to the photo. Full stop.
The vast majority of people out there are using monitors that display 1920x1080 or less. Keeping photos to less than 1000 pixels on the long side means that your whole photo can be viewed at once on those monitors without using auto resizing, which fucks the quality.
>>2772996
even with a print, you're probably standing it 1m away from it, so who cares?
>>2772669
This. While the size limit can be annoying (sometimes I wanna post out of my camera) it doesn't at all detract from photos.
83% of the time I can almost tell if my photos will be passable from the THUMBNAIL. If you PP a large amount in LR I'm sure you will know what I mean.
The most important thing is the composition of your elements. I've known painting teachers to advocate stepping back and even squinting to defocus an artists eye from the detail. Why? Because if a painting's basic composition cannot hold up you are wasting your fucking time, paint and life continuing with it.
Just like with a photo. Almost everything worth being seen is visible at 1000px.
Sure further scrutiny of technique can be made with a larger image, but is that scrutiny necessary? Think of every great photo you've seen. You knew it was great within 10 seconds. Before you analysed every blade of grass in the image you've decided you liked the photograph. Why? More often than not it is the composition of the visual elements that tie together.
Ofcourse it is necessary to have some sharpness in an image. Ofcourse it is great when the focus is tack sharp. But do we really want these banal formalities to be the criteria by which we want our photographs judged?
>>2773560
You just agreed with the op saying that photo should be posted full res, and then spent five minutes disagreeing with it.
>>2772886
This. It's also why I strip exif. You don't need to know my exposure settings. If you think there's too little depth of field, say that. If you think there's too much motion blur or noise, say that. Likewise, you don't need to know what lens I used or body I used.
The exception to this is if I need help figuring out why something happened, but that's what 100% crops and exif are for.
Because its a rule
Who cares about image size?
I can tell from thumbnail if it is worth watching
>>2773724
Nope
http://www.4chan.org/rules#p
Nothing about forcing you to keep exif.
That said, the only people who don't bother with resizing are trolls, contrarian assholes, or are idiots who think there is any kind of advantage to full resolution images.
>>2773740
Couldn't read all the way down to rule 3 huh?
>>2773740
That's a very interesting interpretation of rule 3.
>>2773742
More like you can't bother to understand English.
Please makes it optional.
>>2773747
Please makes it polite.
The rules makes it mandatory.
>>2773747
>Implying that rule 3 in the rules page under the rules surrounded on all sides by rules and nothing but rules isn't a rule because it has the word please in it.
>>2773759
Do you not know what implying means
>>2773752
Irrespective, that part refers to information in addition to what generally is in the exif (exposure information and settings).
It doesn't actually make mention that you need to include exif, just states that it's encoded.
>>2773761
Do you know that, while you think you're being clever, that when you stop attacking a point, and start attacking word choice, pretty much everyone around you sees that you realized that you're an idiot, and you'd be better off just not posting anymore?
>>2773764
Because purposefully stripping EXIF really meshes well with:
>please post as much relevant technical information as possible
They go hand in hand, if you think about it.
>>2773767
> thinks in a conversation about specific word choice in a rule, showing ignorance of how basic concepts like denotation and connotation works isn't a basis for elimination someone's inputs worth.
Seriously guy, implied versus stated is literally what's being discussed here.
>>2773770
What's relevant? How is knowing the aperture a given picture was taken at relevant to its critique? Even if you don't know aperture specifically, if you know enough to talk about the effects of different apertures, you can still talk about it.
It's unnecessary. Unnecessary is irrelevant
>>2773778
You're right. They probably put a bunch of things that weren't rules in the rules just to fuck with us.
>>2773789
I'm not saying it's a good rule, I'm saying that it is clearly a rule, which is what's being discussed at the moment.
Unless what you're saying is that because you don't agree with it, it doesn't exist, which would be incredibly 4chan of you.
It seems like there are a lot of people in this thread who produce technically awful photos that have to be viewed at 1000px with no exif.
>>2773816
Sounds like there are a couple of people with so little self awareness and understanding of what makes a photo good that they literally can't grasp why they shouldn't be allowed, or in fact encouraged, to pixel peep, rather than consume and produce photos that contain content worth paying attention to over 100% zoom examination.
>>2773818
Yeah, that's why so many great photographers shoot small format and print tiny.
>>2773798
What I'm saying is the rule says "relevant technical information". In most cases, unless you're like trying to get help diagnosing something like an exposure problem, exif is not relevant (nor is other gear specific information) to the photograph. The feedback people are looking for here has little to nothing to do with technical aspects of the camera, and if you do want that, then you can post the info you need to get that help. Man people here want thoughts about the artistic aspects and for that, gearwankery gets in the way.
>>2773855
Sounds like you're just insecure and afraid of criticism. Exif bashing is a non-issue in the nine years I've been here.
There are also a fuckton of newbies who can benefit greatly from good photographers including exif. It can be instructive to see that someone might have used a higher or lower iso than expected, or a different exposure mode, or a smaller aperture. Photography is a technical exercise no matter how much you guys don't want it to be, and the details do matter. They don't make or break a great photo, but they are part of it.
>>2772694
>>2772689
to be honnest it's nice to have 1000px pics on phones n shit when we are not at home wifi the file size is way less and i only hav 700 mb a month and havin a pic with like 3mb kinda hurts desu senpai tbqh baka
>>2773907
>no one in the history of photography has learned applicable knowledge about exposure parameters from exif data.
I have. Still have to tweak it a little myself later of course but I can definitely use exif to get a ballpark estimate and ease my own workburden that way.
>>2774486
Not only this, exif leaves out the most important part: how different EVs look in real life. The biggest part off actually learning exposure is getting a feeling for how your eyes see one EV versus another, which is kinda screwy since your eyes change sensitivity. After that it's a question of is shutter speed more important than aperture or vice versa, then what ISO can you get away with using. Exif of someone else's shot doesn't ever help with any if of those. What does help is shooting. You can tell someone all day long that a shot was taken at 1/20, f/16, ISO 100, but that won't give them the slightest clue what the scene actually looked like even if they can do the math to figure out the exposure value. Uh-oh, the exif tells us the camera was in spot metering...what part of the scene did they meter off of? Exif doesn't tell us that they raised exposure by a half stop, raised shadows by 30%, and dropped whites by 20% though.
The information in exif is useless unless you're trying to figure out why a shot didn't come out like you were expecting, like maybe someone dealing with strobes the first time and they have no clue about shutter sync speed posting to find out why half their subject is perfectly exposed and the other half is in blackness.
>>2772669
Because 4chan doesn't want to host that much space, because people don't want to deal with longer load times, because shitstorms would happen over sharpness and I'm sure a lot of people here have varying ppi on their monitor so having something at max size would appear different to a lot of users.
I usually browse on my iPhone, I only ever use my PC for uploading my own photos
My little baby iPhone can't handle these big files, please be nice to my iPhone
>>2772996
I print 12x12 actually, it's Instagram friendly :^)
also because people do get pixel peeped here when they upload full size
>>2777741
I think Instagram lets you post up to 4:3 these days.
Also, what's so bad about getting pixel peeped? My shit's clean as a whistle.
>>2774285
I refuse to browse /p/ on my phone, both for this reason and because I can never really properly see the photos.
Unless I'm just checking up on a previously posted in thread
>>2773697
I don't need to see your exif. But it is nice to see a great photo and look to see what the settings were. It's how some of us noobs learn stuff.
