5 replies to this topic

[Majarvis]

I have a concern about the quality of the 3x pictures on the main site.

Some pictures, not all, but most, don't seem that they are the best quality that they could possibly be.

What I'm talking about is a lot of artificats and general poor quality of the pictures, despite their larger size.

Now, I don't know if the pictures are simply sent to the webmaster whom uploads them, or if they are recompressed/resized, but I believe that we paying members should have better quality, higher pixel pictures.

I am in no way slagging on the website staff, but I'm simply asking that the pictures could be of better quality, that is all. I have found that, over the past few months, a large number of pictures are of this quality.

Additionally, it would be nice if we could have as options proper background sized pictures (1280x1024, 1600x1200, etc) instead of the odd 1200 wide pictures which don't quite fit the entire background.

I appologize if my post comes across as critical, but I can assure you it is not. I love this website, and wouldn't be able to go without it. I just wish that the pictures had the quality and the richness of the content of the website itself.

Thanks

[kar]

I'm pretty sure the dimensions would be limited by whatever contractual agreement as.com have in place, I doubt the photographers (e.g. Sutton) would want full resolution pictures being served out to such a large audience for a comparatively cheap price. Check out sutton's site and see just how expensive high resolution shots are, and imagine how much it would cost us in subscription fees if the site were to offer the current gallery at that sort of resolution.

[Alfisti]

You can't go to 1600 x 1200 because at that point folks can print a good quality 4x6.

[bira]

Majarvis, don't apologise for being critical. We appreciate criticism as much as we appreciate accolades - we want our service to be successful, after all.

Can you give me a specific example of a large photo that is, as you say, bad quality?


As for the larger formats: we toyed with the idea of adding a 4X size (1600x) but a) the photo agencies are rightly wary of such size (as Alfisti says, it's print quality already); b) it means significantly slowing down the update of the gallery (given that you're adding 400kb version to every image process); c) only a small percentage of our readers have screen resolution that would allow for such dimensions to be displayed; and d) probably has some bandwidth overload (although that isn't necessarily a factor). In all, I think 'a' above was a more defining obstacle. Not saying it won't happen, but for now we shelved the idea.

But right now I am more concerned with the quality, so I'd appreciate it if you gave me specific examples.

[Mat]

the gallery is one of my favorite parts of this site. The photographs are in my opinion always of artisticly very high standard.

If i may put forth my opinion, i would rather see 3x sizes introduced of the other racing series (mostly american) that currently only go up to 2x sizes.

[Beef Eater]

Almost on topic
http://forums.autosp...364#post2191364