Well a previous image I entered (in the loneliness round) was 
deliberately very large, because I wanted to emphasize the scale of the 
subject matter, but I was criticised for that. Personally I say go for 
it if you think forcing people to scroll around to see the whole thing 
is important to your image, but be prepared for some criticism.

Also, on the subject of file size, I've entered 2 pictures for this 
round so far: the galaxy "everything" picture, and "over, down, and in", 
both of which can be seen in p.b.i. Anyway, the galaxy picture came out 
at 500k with 90% compression quality, so I've had to compress the hell 
out of it to submit it. The other image came out at 33k (for 1024x768), 
and considering that's at very high compression quality I decided I'm 
happy with that and it really doesn't gain anything by being shown at 
higher res.

Tek

Ross wrote:
> "Bernard Hatt" <bmh### [at] arkadydemoncouk> wrote in message
> news:42F0FEAE.D7582EB1@arkady.demon.co.uk...
> 
>>Looking at the 1st few drafts of my Minimalism entry it looks
>>like it will jpeg compress very well (as I suspect a lot of
>>entries will).
>>
>>Currently the image (1024x768) will fit under the 250k limit
>>using a jpeg quality setting of 99!, so I could probably enter
>>an image at a reasonable compression of 2k*1k5, or even 3k*2k
>>pixels, but is this too big ?
>>
>>I will probably be doing a 3k*2k render in order to get a nice
>>printout anyway ...
>>
>>Bernard
> 
> 
> probably. there are guidelines that suggest staying below a certain size
> since judges are just normal people with normal sized monitors. As a viewer,
> I always get a better feel for an image if it fits on the screen. i think
> you need to ask yourself, what are the benefits of a larger render? are
> there details that will be missed with a normal size render?
> 
> 
>

Post a reply to this message