Upload Limit And Quality Of Image

@Heather Exactly.

Well, keep in mind that this is not the same image that I originally posted. The one that was originally posted and that printed at a larger size before was said to be too soft. I sharpened it and used some filters on it. Dawn, to her credit, helped me out by adding the filter which is why it looks the way it does now. At this point, I would like to say, "Kudos!" to Dawn. My complaint from the beginning was about the inconsistency of an image selling at a larger size with no problems one time and then being too soft at a smaller size at another time. I am fully aware of all of the issues with that particular image and would like to get off that subject.

As far as storage on the server, if it wouldn't be cost effective to have more choices and larger (and more expensive) sizes, then so be it. I'm sure Sean has done the calculus on that.

I would also like to say that there are many things about FAA that I love. I love that we can add as much profit as we would like. As far as I know, none of the other POD sites do this. I love that it is not a corporate entity. I love that it is optimized for Google. I love that it exists because I've made a little scratch here that I would not have otherwise.

I was never trying to be a Negative Norman. I was just protesting what I saw as inconsistency in policy. If there is an image problem and I think I can improve that image, then that is what I will try to do first and foremost. I have had a few issues here that I've been vocal about. A sycophant is no one's friend.

Stitching panos and hdr work easily can eat up the 25mb limit, so I end up shrinking my image down rather than uploading at a lower quality (9 or 10 vs 12). Works for me. If anyone really wants an 8 foot print of Parliament or something they can contact me.

Shooting in jpeg fine or raw makes not the slightest difference when you start enlarging - it's still gonna try stretching those pixels. As an aside, I shoot in both jpg fine and Raw - I don't use the raw and looking at the two images - side by side - after the raw has been changed to tif - I seldom see the difference. or when looking at them with Nikon's view nx - right next to each other while the 'raw is still raw' - there is seldom a noticeable difference.

enlarging with any photo manipulating program on the market, in any format - IS going to begin to degrade the image. You may do other things - but when you begin stretching an image - it deteriorates the image.

I simply don't understand - how large do you want your image to print? Taken straight out of my camera - a NikonD3100 - with no cropping, only adding a layer with my signature - 48 X 32. they are saved and uploaded as a png file 300 mp/inch. They are seldom up as high as 24 mb and very often in the teens. What size is the image out of your camera? Have you tried uploading it as a png and see what size it will print at. It is a fallacy that the image must be such large mb's to make a good image or size.

Even my abstracts, which are tortured and played with, layers on layers all merged for the final creation - seldom get up to 25 mbs. The only problem I do have - is that occasionally I will have one that I saved right at 25 mb - and when it goes to upload - it says that it is 27 or 28 - that creates a problem - because then I must drop down the mp/inch - because I don't want to sacrifice the size - but - I usually only have to drop it to 285 to get it down so that it will upload - and since FAA, to my understanding - prints them at 100 - that's not even noticeable.

The issue, to my eye, is not one of image compression, but one of pixelization from enlargement. Upon looking at the 100% view again just now, I see you added additional post processing since yesterday. Looks like a painterly style filter and/or specialty enlargement plug-ins, which usually work great if you don't enlarge an image too far. I think you simply tried to go too big with this one.

In one place that has a large limit everyone had to pay double just so folks with the larger camera could

add images as large as they wanted. Leaving poor folks to close their accounts or reduce their plan just

to stay. A larger files size takes up more server space and even tho I have no clue what that costs it is not

free. Not that it would ever be an option but would folks be willing to pay 100.00 a year to add a larger file?

I know I would not want to pay more. Maybe for those that sold tons would not mind but those of us struggling

to get anything going would not. Now I would love to see an increase to 27 or so when I add a texture it

raises the count. But still like the fee being lower. I do not have a large MP camera tho.

I don't see pixellating, I see processing that softened the image. Personally, I'd crop it so that car isn't distracting on the left, putting it at 300dpi, which is a standard for printing. But, as everyone previously had stated, you can't enlarge an original image past its capabilities and expect perfection, especially in jpeg format. What size was it shot in and what format? That makes a huge difference even before processing. Did you shoot jpeg or raw?

Lance,

Here is the image that you're referring to:

http://fineartamerica.com/featured/austin-hdr-006-lance-vaughn.html

You enlarged the image to 7,200 pixels by 5,400 pixels. That implies that you captured the image using a 38 megapixel camera.

Even at those large pixel dimensions, your file size is only 10.8 MB.

If you don't enlarge your images and don't compress them, there should be no problem staying below 25 MB. We don't have any plans to raise that limit.

Sean