Is resizing photos a meme? I'm seeing a lot less resized

>>3001106
>posting an image that's 1000 wide
Learn to fucking meme, kiddo

>>3001106
>tfw wasn't a motorsports photographer in the 60s

you'd get kicked out a circuit if you tried that nowadays

>>3001128

Well, it's because they got tired of scraping photographers off the roadway.

>>3001106
im so confused as to why resizing is even an issue

File: 1863fbee4c4dc784e4329cf562f1623b.jpg (27KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 600x600px

>>3001128
>>3001129
Even worse, imagine being a photographer for Group B.

>>3001131
You seem really confused in general. You managed to completely ignore all forms of punctuation.

>>3001131
>BECAUSE MORE PICKLES = MORE BETTER PICTURE
>people actually believe this

>>3001106
Yes, the fire rises

File: IMG_20170112_152555.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

yes

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Model	Nexus 5X
Camera Software	HDR+ 1.0.141213537n
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Created	2017:01:12 15:25:56
Image Width	4032
Image Height	3024
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Color Space Information	sRGB
F-Number	f/2.0
Subject Distance Range	Distant View
Focal Length	4.67 mm
Lens Aperture	f/2.0
Exposure Mode	Auto
Image Height	3024
Rendering	Custom
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Saturation	Normal
Exposure Program	Normal Program
Sharpness	Normal
White Balance	Auto
Image Width	4032
Metering Mode	Center Weighted Average
Subject Distance	Infinity
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Contrast	Normal
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Brightness	9.4 EV
ISO Speed Rating	60
Exposure Time	61/200000 sec

>>3001449
>4032px
>Phone picture

Why

board filled with gearfags, drama queens and now pixelpeepers

0 interest in art, light and composition besides retards who glue 3rds/golden ration grids on viewfinders and lcds

i feel sad and lonely

>>3001106
i really enjoy hi res pictures on here when theres lots and lots of cool detail or stuff in the distance, but when some dimwit expects me to wait 10 seconds to look at an oof photo of a dog i get kinda grumpy.

i think the norm should be around 1mb pictures (i dont care about the amount of pixels), but when you feel like the image deserves it you can go over that limit however you want,.

File: P1010458-2.jpg (544KB, 1000x757px) Image search: [Google]

544KB, 1000x757px

testing the resized photo, never done this before

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	OLYMPUS IMAGING CORP.
Camera Model	E-PL5
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.5.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.8
Color Filter Array Pattern	738
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	50 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	94 dpi
Vertical Resolution	94 dpi
Image Created	2017:01:14 12:23:28
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Manual
ISO Speed Rating	200
Lens Aperture	f/8.0
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	25.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Manual
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3001505
No one cares about you, pseud. Everyone here has a hobby, they all enjoy different aspects of it. Your priorities aren't any more superior than any other priorities here. Neck yourself.

>>3001615

I feel like people should be able to post whatever the fuck they want without being persecuted. Wanna post a tiny 640px photo like natureguy because you're afraid you work will get stolen? Cool. Wanna post a big ass photo because you have the megapixels? Cool. Don't wanna look at that big ass image? Don't click on it.

>>3001499
>Why
because he's a rebel, the kids would be proud of him

>>3001631
>buying stuff as a hobby
>getting buttblasted as a hobby
>checking and comparing photos resolution as a hobby

lmao

>>3001499
>>3001449
Man phone pics look as good as dslr cameras, why bother with these big sensor pieces of shit?

>>3001630
It didn't work.

>>3001630
dat chromab

>>3001646
Each one of those things is a part of the hobby, whether you like it or not, and everyone has their own way of enjoying things.

Again, neck yourself.

>>3001131
because people dont want to use 4 fucking MB to load your snapshit

Anything over 1MB should be banned from /p/. If you want others to pixel peep, upload the snapshit to another website and link it

>>3001143
>tries to print an enlarged 12mp photo

>>3001106
People have been posting more full size snapshit because they just got their first camera for Christmas and they can't read the sticky.

>>3005724
This

>>3001651
bokeh

>>3005724
>>3005733
Thirded

>>3005724
Or maybe it's because the resize brigade has been getting blown the fuck out in every thread. ;)

>>3001630
shadow detail is bad

>>3006259
fuck off moopco no one likes you

>>3005738
kek

>>3001651
>phone pictures look as good as DSLRs when shot with a lot of available light and viewed on a phone screen in the Instagram or Facebook app

Fixed that for ya.

>>3001499
>>3001449
How the fuck do these two posts have the same exact number?

>>3006589

Lol wut

>>3005724
Or it's because a thousand pixel wide image is a fucking postage stamp and is laughable when trying to judge an image by it.

>>3001131
Because 1000px is enough to know how bad your snapshit is. This board isn't about pixel peeping you fucking dunce

probably so that portrait oriented photos still full show on a 1920x1080 monitor, which is probably most popular, although 4k should probably be the standard

>>3006610
Your browser will resize the image. The arguments of

>download size
>download time
>browser height and width

have all been refuted and defeated numerous times in the last year. The time and space to download larger images is trivial. The only people who still insist on the "rule" (which not a real rule) are fools like >>3006609
who use terms like "snapshit" unironically and also believe pixel peeping isn't an integral part of photography. Is this really the person you want to listen to?

>>3006934
browser resizing fucks up the image stupid nigger. "Image scaling causes poor quality in firefox/internet explorer but not chrome"

>>3006952
>browser resizing fucks up the image

No it doesn't.

> "Image scaling causes poor quality in firefox/internet explorer but not chrome"

just a lie. I don't know how else to put it. That's not what happens.

>>3001668
you forgot how to write the whole word, didn't you?

>>3006589
r u retard?

File: 14467856373752676.png (74KB, 300x256px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 300x256px

>>3006589

>>3001106
>I'm seeing a lot less resized images lately.
It's from newfags that upload snapshits from their phones and are too lazy/too stupid to resize. All the serious photogs on here resize. Generally if a photo is +3mb I can already tell it's going to be shit.

>>3005724
Forthed

>>3005806
Maybe in the made up threads in your mind, but not the ones on /p/ ;p

>>3006934
>pixel peeping is an integral part of photography
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
OK now I know you're a troll

>>3007860

>can't come up with single reason to justify resizing in 2017
>besides the fact that it's in the sticky and "muh board culture"

#WINNING