I just went through the gallery looking at recent matches for "Poser" and "Portrait", and found myself rather annoyed by the number of gallery image thumbnails that are just a closeup of the figure's eye. Why is this gimmick so ubiquitous?

PLEASE folks, make your thumbnail a 200x200 scaled version of your entire picture, not a 200x200 chunk cut out of it...

Message edited on: 10/09/2004 23:08

Well...some have nudity in it and need to be tagged. I do not think I like to see a whole Nudity pic (or partial) in 200x200, even though some in there right in the open showing topless and my son coming around to ask a question about something and see's what I am looking at. I feel like I am doing something bad when not. Chunk thumbnails help give the sense of renders. So, clicking on one gives a whole surprise. Everyone tries to give that surprise thumbnail to get more viewers. Those nudity ones get more viewers, kinda annoyes me. But...what can I say?

"PLEASE folks, make your thumbnail a 200x200 scaled version of your entire picture, not a 200x200 chunk cut out of it..." No. But thanks for requesting your personal preferences so nicely. Emily

Most images look crappy crunched into 200x200, because the dimensions don't match. Besides, I like the little teasers... I like the suprise when the whole thing loads. Also if I've already seen the whole picture, why bother clicking on it? Anyways, thanks for the suggestion, but no.

For the short time I been here, this place is getting crazy. First a contest problem, and now a complaint about 200x200 thumbnail sizes not showing the whole pic. I never hardly go in the gallery anymore anyways due to the nudity thumbs. Why do I stay here?

I did not mean to say that the only acceptable thumbnail is the entire image scrunched to 200x200, but I think that thumbnails should show a reasonable section--enough to tell if the image is worth viewing, and acceptable to view in the workplace (nudity tag is not enough). I'm not against cropping out a reasonable-sized sample area for a thumbnail "teaser", but one should consider doing this carefully, with intent.

What I'm objecting to is the cropping of just one eyeball from a huge image. Half the portrait gallery is literally a gallery of eyeball images. These are not cleverly composed teasers like yours, queri, they are just boring to browse and not helpful for making a selection.

Message edited on: 10/10/2004 00:40

PLEASE folks, make your thumbnail a 200x200 scaled version of your entire picture, not a 200x200 chunk cut out of it... An 800x800 (or bigger) image doesn't scale very well to 200x200. You won't get much more of an idea what it is that way than you will by the single eyeball. ;-) bonni

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=780403&Start=1&Artist=FlyByNight&ByArtist=Yes

I never hardly go in the gallery anymore anyways due to the nudity thumbs. Why do I stay here? A better question might be, why have the accept nudity checked in your profile if you object to it? If it's unchecked the thumb won't even show along with the rest of the pics. I've been wondering why ppl put "mild nudity" and such in the title when it doesn't seem to be necessary. If it isn't enough to check the nudity box then why worry about it? If the box is checked then is it just advertising to get more views? It depends on how the thumb is cropped, some ways with creative composition do make it more curious to see the whole image, and some have a good thumb but are disappointing when the whole image is shown.

FlyByNight, this is not what I'm objecting to. Your thumbnail above is a good example of selective cropping done right--there is enough there to see what you're going to get. I made the mistake of saying "entire image shrunk to 200x200" when I meant "big enough section shrunk to 200x200". I myself rarely squish down entire renders, but nor do I cut 200x200 chunks from 1600x1200 images or repeated crop out just one eye. Happiness is someplace in between.

Ah, I see what you mean. I don't post images that large mainly because I personally dislike have to scroll down and across to view a large image. Sort of loses the effect for me.

But, ya see, terminusnord, if they haven't done clever teaseing thumbnails, then maybe the whole pic isn't that good either. [Not that I hit the ball out of the park every time] Think of it as an early warning system. No inspiration for thumb, maybe you can skip that one-- I usually do. And I know I'm not about to jump on the bandwagon of naked eyeball thumbs. LOL! Emily

You know, I just had that same realization! It gives me an idea for a possible gallery feature: gallery artist/keyword filters. I can think of reasons why not to implement such a system, but let's be honest--just about everyone has seen an image that is so bloody awful they wish they could filter out the artist from the search results. I think anyone who claims otherwise is not being entirely honest with themselves. Frankly, I'd settle for a checkbox to filter out everything that uses "The Girl"; I'm personally offended by that figure's dimensions/features and what it represents (but I digress, that's a whole other issue ;-)

Message edited on: 10/10/2004 01:34

"why have the accept nudity checked in your profile if you object to it?" There is an obtion to have "accept nudity" so I can check it in my profile? Where is this Option and how can I uncheck it?

In the top "drop down" menu on the sidebar there's an option called My Profile. Go there. Lots of options to check or uncheck, including nudity in the galleries. :) bonni

Thanks elizabyte..did it..done. For the thumbnails..I always try my best to have a good thumbnail to go with the render. I like to make my thumbs like a teaser, but they hardly do the job. Very difficult to size render down to 200x200 or most of it to the size. So I take part of it. Thinking where and what from the render to use. I also made my own thumb "logo" and the idea of it was short. So making a thumbnail isn't that easy.

A little note: Gladysclump said: "Most images look crappy crunched into 200x200, because the dimensions don't match."
You do kinow that you -don't- have to use the entire 200x200 size for your thumbs, right? Usually, if my pic is a 'portrait' dimensioned pic (often 3 wide x 4 tall proportion), I make my thumbs to that proportion. Thus, a thumbnail of 150 wide x 200 tall is useful. That way, there is an indication of the final pic size, and if I do a full preview of the pic, there is no distortion.
justmytwocentsworthonthesubjectgrin

A thumbnail should probably be a reduced version of the full image. However, it seems that a good thumbnail is becoming an artform in itself. It's true that if you can see the whole image in a thumb, there's not much point to clicking on it to see the full version. Sometimes though, the thumb image is too tiny to make out details and it's worth it to see the big picture.

By creating a "teaser" thumb, people attempt to attract viewers by tantalizing them with a well placed snapshot. For those of us that like (and are able) to view all images, this has had an annoying tendency to focus on the chest of any females present in the image. I can understand what the artist is doing: Breast shots generate more hits. The other extreme seems to be taking a teeny tiny portion of the image (such as an eye) hoping curiosity will get the better of the viewer.

Do I like cropped thumbs? Sometimes, if they're artfully done. A good thumb will get me to click on it if it looks original, or well placed.

Are people likely to stop using these tactics? Doubtful. :D

Rosemaryr, Was that question directed at me? Of course I know that don't have to use the entire 200x200 size... I've never used the whole 200x200. I was just responding terminusnord's request, "make your thumbnail a 200x200 scaled version of your entire picture, not a 200x200 chunk cut out of it..." Which I'm not going to do anyway. Personally, I rarely click on the full image thumbnails, because I've already seen the image. On occasions when I do, often the image loses something in it's full size, the clarity and sharpness are gone, and it's disappointing.

This has come up before. I prefer to just to post a preview. Its not like the art I do gets a lot of hits or comments anyway being surrounded by umpteen pinups. Why add insult to injury knowing that someone wouldn't even have to click on the thumbnail to see the rest of the picture.

I think we should be creative and make thumbnails however we want them, but I respect your opinion. :-)

Making good thumbnails is an artform in itself. It's almost similar to advertising. You have to be able to captivate your audience with a limited amount of resources. Trying to fit the entire image into a 200X200 box isn't always a good idea. Strategically cropping along with some resizing can actually yield great results. Let's say you have an image that's 800X600. Sometimes you can resize it to 600X450 and then take a 200X200 chunk out out that smaller size and make it into a thumbnail.
I've found that a good title along with a well made thumbnail can actually increase your views.
In my humble opinion, if you have spent so much effort and time on your artwork, why not spend a little bit more on the presentation of it.

JV.

Ive only 2 images in my gallery so far, but one thumbnail is a crop, the second the entire image shrunk with proportions constrained and sharpening filters applied.

I cropped the first cause I wanted to use the "hint/tease of image". I would have preferred that for the second as well but was too lazy for resizing a potential slice so I ended up doing a full image reduction.

Id say the art produced here is far to varied for it to be possible to establish a preview standard beyond image size and diminsion limitations. What I DO think should be a respected and followed standard in thumbnails is the visual content. It seems to me to be senseless to have a Nudity tag checked with a thumbnail showing nudity. You see BOTH the warnings and the preview thumb AT THE SAME TIME as does anyone in range of your monitor. Some of us arent opposed to artistic nudity, but want to control when we view it. Having unedited thumbnails takes this control away from us.

I would like to implore all of my fellow artists: Make all the beautiful art you wish. Enjoy whatever genre you wish as is YOUR RIGHT!!! But Please, respect your viewers, respect the possibility they may have children, unappreciate of art significant others, or Mrs. Grundy unexpectedly around when browsing thumbs! Respect the fact that we have a wonderful gallery FREE for our own use and the team of SysAdmins, Moderators, Coordinators that has made it all possible for us, but has also set standards as is THIER RIGHT!! We have nudity and violence tags for a reason. Its pretty dishonorable to slip under the wires of these clear rules with racy thumbnails. I dont really want to deny myself lots of art by using filters just to avoid thumbnails that are, when all is said and done, a violation of the rules here.

Im sure that ive cheesed of some people with this post. Thats not my intent. I just can see a future where we can all contine to enjoy this site and people can expose themselves to a maximum of fine art - it just requires a reasonable amount of respect and self control on everyone's part.

Just my two cents :)

Logan

I have only been doing this since April and for the life of me I cannot figure out how some gets 200 x 200 thumbnail image to load. I have tried it before but it is always too big of a file to load into render or it is so reduced to be able to load that it looks really bad. Not that my thumbnails are all that inspiring anyway ..some days they are good and somedays they really suck...but I prefer to do a cropping thumbnail...it's more of a teaser if I can do it right..more people look.

Hard to tell which contributes more to the misunderstanding about the nudity flags. The way the titles are misused or the way the nudity check box is tied to the setting in the profiles. As elizabyte pointed out: In the top "drop down" menu on the sidebar there's an option called My Profile. Select which options you would like to have displayed below: Nudity in the galleries? Yes No Thumbnail images? Yes No If no is selected none of the images with the nudity flags set will be shown (Also having an image with nudity without the box checked is a violation of the TOS) So putting Nudity in the title of the images is unecessary since it's superfluous. The design of the site is geared toward repecting ppl's sensibilities the problem seems to be that the correct settings aren't being used properly for personal preferences

You raise a very good point Argon18, the site works best for those that take the time to learn its features :)

What im getting at is that if an image has nudity, its nudity tag is properly checked, and its thumbnail shows an intriguing crop of the image without nudity, the chances are that more people are going to return in a more convienient time for them and click that thumbnail! This wont happen if racy thumbs encourage more and more people to use that "no nudity" filter.

Basically, More Views = More Satisfied Artists :)

RENDER ON!!!

Message edited on: 10/10/2004 14:37

annemarie2 wrote: I have only been doing this since April and for the life of me I cannot figure out how some gets 200 x 200 thumbnail image to load. I have tried it before but it is always too big of a file to load into render or it is so reduced to be able to load that it looks really bad. Hi annemarie2: Recently there was a thread on how to create thumbnails. Just follow this link and see if it's of help to you. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1956246 JV :o)

Argon18 I put (Nudity) in the title because there are some people, including myself, that don't want to turn on the nudity filter, I prefer to be able to make the choice for myself on whether, or when, I want to view images with nudity. I am not a child that needs a filter. You're so into this Nudes VS the Prudes thing that you don't seem to get that there is a middle ground. And some people just don't like to have nudity forced down their throats as they browse the gallery. So, for those people I have the consideration not to put nudity in the thumbnail, but I do warn that there is nudity in the picture.

Isn't the point that the ppl that have the nudity filter checked have the option whether or not to view them but the ppl the object to it have the right to unchecked it? If you make the choice to view the nudity why complain about it showing in the gallery? Is is adult to make that choice then complain about it being forced? The middle ground is everyone being able to make the choice for themselves. The thing about the Nudes and the Prudes was that ppl were complaining that there was nudity in the gallery that either didn't know about that option in the profile or that wanted to force everyone else not to be able to view it also. If the image has nudity in it then why hide it in the thumb, isn't that false advertising?

No, it's not false advertising, as I already said I put "nudity" in the title. It gives people a choice, maybe someone happens to be looking over their shoulder right then, maybe there is a child in the room, whatever... who cares. There are also different types of nudity in this gallery, there are tasteful nudes, raunchy nudes, nudity just for the sake of being nude and everything in between, I tend to try to be considerate of other people's feelings. So on this issue, I will not show nudity in a thumbnail simply because I don't need to step on other people's toes, especially over something so trivial. I can happily post all the nudes I want, and members can happily have a choice whether or not to see it.

Id say its far closer to false advertising when an image has no nudity tag, the thumbnail has no nudity (not that it should), and then you find unexpected nudity when you click to see the full sized pic. THAT is why nudity and violence tags exist, to advertise imminent nudity or violence. Then what if youve innocently clicked a link that has no warning tag, turn around, and the Pope happens to be standing there wondering why there are gazongas on your monitor? What do you say to him?

No one that I can see, doing a look back over this thread, has complained about nudity IN the gallery. The thumbnail preview section IS NOT the gallery, its the preceeding page, on which people can see the word nudity to warn them that if they actually enter the gallery from this preview link, they are going to see nudity of some kind.

Putting a thumbnail picture of nudity immediately below the word "nudity" - when that tag is specifically meant to be a warning and protection - is a defeat of the whole purpose of the tag.

Hi annemarie2: Recently there was a thread on how to create thumbnails. Just follow this link and see if it's of help to you. http://www.renderosity.com/messages.ez?ForumID=12356&Form.ShowMessage=1956246 JV :o) Thank you very much....now I know what I was doing wrong:)Hopefully my thumbnails will start looking a little better:)