Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: l_d_allan on March 03, 2013, 12:48:52 pm
-
I've noticed that the pixel resolution of submissions to LuLa "User Critiques" vary a lot. In a quick check, I noticed many were from 800 to 1000 px on the maximum side, up to what appear to be full-resolution of the original such as 4000x3000.
I attempted to find a "sticky topic" that addressed this issue, but I didn't find one. Perhaps I didn't look hard enough?
Many websites do have limitations on resolution, typically 1024 on the longest side. IMO, this is a relic of years past as far as technical issues of bandwidth and storage are concerned.
However, I can see the purpose of a rather limited maximum, as this can put greater emphasis on composition that "survives" drastic down-sampling. It certainly cuts way down on "pixel peeping" ... if not eliminating.
-
Much of the work posted on LuLa is copyrighted, so naturally anyone who is concerned about their intellectual property isn't going to post a hi-res image, even if it's watermarked. Also, if a photo gets too big it's not going to fit comfortably on a screen without having to scroll it. I like to keep photos I post to not more than 950 pixels on the longest side.