Forum: Community Center


Subject: Image Sizes in Gallery

hopeandlove opened this issue on Aug 19, 2015 ยท 99 posts


anahata.c posted Wed, 19 August 2015 at 2:53 PM

Yes to Tara (auntietk). And to the others. I managed artists years back, and in several arts; and while we didn't have websites, we had gallery shows, presentations, etc, so yes, I respect the great effort the staff put into this project: But it feels like you did it in a vacuum. One of the reasons artists like this site is BECAUSE it has a 4000 x 4000 size limit. And the ability to write longer descriptions. And for many other things. I've been on other sites, and there will ALWAYS be some that offer no size limits, and those that offer smaller ones: But RR offered 4000 x 4000, and that was one of the reasons we loved this place. And, as you can see, there are other major issues too. If this were just the "look" of the site, it wouldn't be as serious: But you've changed essentials, and it's hard to see how it's better for Art---even while it's better for advertising. I agree about the profusion of nude and partially nude models. It's not that we're prudes---a number of us drew from nude models for many years---it's that it makes us feel we're secondary to the models. Please take all of this to heart. These complaints are about the very substance of the site. Thanks, Mark