Been noticing that very few folks actually look at the full size images.  So, now we have another intermediate "thumbnail"....actually 3 images....the thumb, the downsized image, and the full sized image.

Almost seems pointless to size images/renders larger than the Rendo downsize...any thoughts?

Guess posting smaller may cut down on theft.....

I agree Gradient.  Pointless in sizing your capture nice and big if it gets posted small anyway.  Doug?  Can you change that maybe?

Maybe people automatically see the pictures in full size (via 'my gallery options', I see all images appear full size, so I don't need to click for full size, you see)... And I would not resize my images for that reason.

I've noticed this as well, but perhaps those viewing already have their preferences set to view full size, and as such, it isn't recorded when viewed.  And that what you're seeing is those who have their settings default to resized, only when they choose to view full size that it's recorded.  Does that make sense?  I'd be awfully impressed if 70% of the users here opt to view reduced as opposed to full.

It might be a good question to ask in the Community Center.

Hmm, I can see this one getting some serious debate!

I must admit, I still prefer uploading my larger images and leaving the choice up to the viewer. I think the new way of resolving the sizing issue is a great compromise and satisfies everybody.

If a user has their options set to show an intermediate image and they particularly like one of my images I still believe that they may (note may) click again to see it full size, perhaps to scrutinize detail. I'm happy knowing that its there for them if they want to view it, no matter how often or seldom anybody use that option.

Now, when it comes to rendered images its a whole different kettle of fish! Us photographers take about 10 seconds to resize a capture in Photoshop or the equivalent. Someone rendering an image may add 10 hours to their render time going from 1024x768 to 1600x1200!!! (thumb-suck so don't lynch me! )

I agree with your last point though. I have been stressing a bit about people stealing my photos. Having larger images available will definately promote such theft.

At the end of the day I guess its each to their own.

Wayne

I'm with Geert. I have my options set to see full-size views all the time, no matter the artist's preferrence. It is really an innacurrate and useless statistic ever since the guys in the back room added that option.

Well, as a long time surfer of the galleries, since the changeover I have noticed a certain increase in the speed at which I am able to view galleries with the resized'  images. I feel that, and I don't know if they do,even the  'resized' images ought to count as a view, with a lot there's no real need to go to the large as the re sized one clarifies what the thumb hinted at..LOL, and I often have no need/interest in wasting time loading an image potentially too large to be viewed without scrolling, the main reason I like the re sized thing...so TerraDreamer, you might just be suprised as a lot of folks out here are in fact resource deprived and don't wish to spend those few resources loading huge graphics...talkin' mainly about dial up which as I recently found out is not yet 'universal' ,heh heh heh

OK well I have to say that having the smaller image first is great for the mods and coords, because I can get a good view fast, while checking out all the images  uploaded.
But I do notice many images are not in need of much resize.
So the details still show up.

Indeed dB, there are are still a fair number of folks in R'osity world who really either can't afford a FAST computer, so render small, or just prefer a smaller image so more folks will view it, and it suffers less in the resize .......I personally rarely render above 800x600 as I never did like scrolling, even in the old daze, to see the full image.

Well, maybe it's a matter of taste, but I've always found small images (less than 800) hardly worth looking at, no matter how good they might be... I always think: maybe it's good, but what a pity, too small... (that is if I seriously wish to judge and rate an image). And maybe my point is 'pointless', LOL, but that's the way I feel about it. And I can copy and paste even a huge image in a number of programs in seconds, to view it 'fit screen' if I want to, so I never make a problem about having to scroll either...

I always try and remember that even though some one may not have as much cash as I do for a system, they may well have a lot more ability than I do so check out even tiny renders as I well remember the horrendous render times I had to suffer thru with My old A1000 to even get a 640x480 render...remember your past and you will be more gentle with your future......there are still poor people out here

re: copy and paste...well as a Moderator I imagine I look at a considerable number of images more than an average 'surfer' or member viewing galleries they've subscribed to, so it would really be a pain, even with PSCS2 or IrfanView open in the background...to shuffle around like that .....

Hi Bobby. You make some good points. What matters is that now we have a choice, and that is good. I checked out both your gallery here and your website. I like the design, but it looks like it is in need of an update -- like mine, heheh. You do some great 3D work. I see you like old radios too. I have a few in my gallery and more in need of uploading.

@ bobbystahr: Yes, I do understand your point of view and I'm sure many people will appreciate it. And I feel touched about the 'poor people' quote, as I've been in serious financial trouble for some years now (I know what it feels like to live without heating and warm water in freezing winter, and to live on water and bread for seemingly endless months). I appreciate the small intermediate views very much, but I would feel very sorry if the option for displaying larger images would not be there... After all, that's what makes this site stand out compared to many other photography sites...

Ok...we've gone  a bit off topic here....but some good points;

@girsempa;  I didn't know that I could change my default view to full size....I have now done that and see how it works,Thanks!

I wonder how many other folks are aware of this?????

@Terradreamer;  Agreed, so what's the point of recording the full size view then if it's not accurate?

@urbanarmitage; Yes, valid point on render sizes/times although most tend to render larger and then downsize anyway...eg in Terragen.

@TwoPynts; agreed seems like a useless statistic

@Bobbystahr; Sorry, but have to disagree here...as a dial up user (high speed is not available in my area)...the site does take longer....I've noticed this with all PHP based sites....I think it has to do with the PHP script loading...perhaps the techies can help here????  Also, folks that have their viewing option set to resized, now have to load an ADDITIONAL page to get to the full sized one....lots of fun for dial up folks....

Totally agree with you regarding cash vs. ability...many talented folks out there!!!

@dbgrafix; Sorry Doug...yes the downsized image may be good for mods/coords....but the site isn't soley for them.....Plus, I'd be very disappointed if any mods/coords with high speed access don't view the full size image!!!!

Lots of good discussion here, but my question still remains...What is the point of the intermediate sized image?...seems like it's just taking up server space....

Why not just trash the "resized" view all together and leave the default the full size?

If I remember this correctly...It has something to do with the page width. It makes it more consistant..

There was a discussion in the Community Center forum when this went live..

I'll see if I can find the programmers response..

Here's a few links that might answer some of the questions that have been raised..

Thread One

Thread Two

Thread Three

I hope these help clear up some of the questions

@gradient...i sit corrected on connecting...i did not know PHP was so dial up friendly....

"Also, folks that have their viewing option set to resized, now have to load an ADDITIONAL page to get to the full sized one....lots of fun for dial up folks...."

but only IF and  WHEN they want to see it....I don't always consider the subject matter something I wish to dwell on...picky, picky, picky as me old mum used to say

but I would like to get rid of this double spacing thing on

enter....sigh.....just me-andering again

great links Bruce...concise... in a word

@bobbystahr...but that is precisely the point....I suspect MOST folks are not aware that they can change default view sizes...before, once they were interested enough to click on the thumb they got the "big" picture...now it takes them an additional page to load to get there.  And I think what's happening is they don't want to wait to see it load.  So, again...either trash the full size or trash the "resized'...and judging by the number of full size views, the answer becomes clear.

@pushinfaders...Thanks Bruce, I will have a peek at those threads....

Again, small images are of very little interest to me. If I don't have the possibilty to see some decent sized photographs, I might not even take the effort to bother at all. That's exactly what makes this site 'worth my while', and why I'm not interested in most other sites. So, leaving the full size option completely out, would mean at least a number of people loosing interest in the site. Surely I can't be the only one that feels this way...

Arggg!  That's typically me!  I didn't even know that I could change that in 'my gallery options'!  I do now!  Thanx guys!

@ girsempa - I agree with you on people possibly loosing interest if the full-sized images are no longer available. I for one would be very disappointed!

Regardless of whether users prefer full size or resized images I still think that the flexibility and choice offered is a big feather in RR's cap.

Wayne

Quote - @Terradreamer;  Agreed, so what's the point of recording the full size view then if it's not accurate?

Well, it is accurate if you have your display preferences set to "resize images regardless of artist preferences".   To test this, I changed my settings to the above and went to find images that were at larger sizes, say 1200xwhatever.  It did record a view and updated the view count, but did not record a full-size view until I clicked on it; it then updated the full-view count.  Changing my settings back to view full size regardless of artist preferences simply records the view, not a full-size view.  So, that's how it's working, and as a result, you really have no idea how your images are being viewed, other than assuming it's being viewed full size all the time and those who opt not to will on ocassion do so because of further interest, hence the full-size counts.  In my opinion, it's a useless counter because of it.  With that said, the only counter of benefit is the first counter recording views period, as it records them all, regardless of view size.

Quote - Lots of good discussion here, but my question still remains...What is the point of the intermediate sized image?...seems like it's just taking up server space...Why not just trash the "resized" view all together and leave the default the full size?

I would imagine it's geared to the dial-up crowd, but that's purely speculation on my part; I seriously doubt they had this in mind when they designed it.  I would agree that the option of full-size only is a better option.  It was this way before and I never heard many complaints about it.

EDIT: I'll also agree with a few others here that many, many users are completely unaware of the view options available to them.

TerraDreamer, that's an interesting discovery regarding the view count. Can any of the devs or mods tell us if this is something being worked on?

Wayne