Daniel Clune: Why are you downsizing images of say a 1000 pixels wide. It makes them look like crap. Click on image it then up-sizes this downsized image making it look even worse. Yes you can click on Original in corner but that's a real pain plus it then pops it up in another box. I thought this was a photo site. Why make looking at those photos so POOR?
Most monitors are now at least 1200 pixels wide, why downsize 1000 pixel wide pictures which is what I consider ideal web size. Not tiny 600 wide ones.
I could not agree more. And they strip the exif in process. So you only shake you head and ask the same question - why would a photography site do something like it. Beats me.
Direct link |
Posted on Oct 5, 2012 at 20:17:11 UTC
It looks ugly, it is unintuitive, and the rating system is an absolute nonsense. For the forums that are driven by conflict it is yet another addon of useless information. It is uninviting.
Direct link |
Posted on Oct 4, 2012 at 08:42:13 UTC
as 234th comment
| 2 replies
Wien, Austria
Daniel Clune: Why are you downsizing images of say a 1000 pixels wide. It makes them look like crap. Click on image it then up-sizes this downsized image making it look even worse. Yes you can click on Original in corner but that's a real pain plus it then pops it up in another box. I thought this was a photo site. Why make looking at those photos so POOR?
Most monitors are now at least 1200 pixels wide, why downsize 1000 pixel wide pictures which is what I consider ideal web size. Not tiny 600 wide ones.
I could not agree more. And they strip the exif in process. So you only shake you head and ask the same question - why would a photography site do something like it. Beats me.
The way they display linked from the outside images is the true horror now. It never even occurred to me this thing can get messed up so badly.
It looks ugly, it is unintuitive, and the rating system is an absolute nonsense. For the forums that are driven by conflict it is yet another addon of useless information. It is uninviting.