4 ms·

There are so many amazing photos here. Unfortunately the high-res versions are currently inaccessible. I guess I don't understand the choice to provide low-res

There are so many amazing photos here. Unfortunately the high-res versions are currently inaccessible. I guess I don't understand the choice to provide low-res on a per-photo basis, but high-res all or nothing. From the website: "Here are some of the photos from the archive (but in low resolution. For the full resolution download the archive)." From the archive download link (a single large zip): "Sorry, you can't view or download this file at this time. Too many users have viewed or downloaded this file recently. Please try accessing the file again later. If the file you are trying to access is particularly large or is shared with many people, it may take up to 24 hours to be able to view or download the file. If you still can't access a file after 24 hours, contact your domain administrator."

jazzyjackson 3y ago
wow, didn't realize google places this bandwidth restriction on public shares are the full res photos 100MB digital negatives or what? would have made for a good demonstration of webtorrent
- arghwhat 3y ago
  A original in-camera JPEG is easily 10-15 MB, while the raws are easily 30-40MB each. Stacks up quickly. Granted, these are presumably edits from the raws, and a good AVIF or JXL export in full resolution should be more like... 5MB?
shkkmo 3y ago
> I guess I don't understand the choice to provide low-res on a per-photo basis, but high-res all or nothing. The low-res photos are hosted directly on WordPress while the archive is hosted on google drive. This may be due to bandwidth or storage constraints/costs or some oher such limitation.
- nycdatasci 3y ago
  Ah - that makes sense.
- dTal 3y ago
  But they could still offer individual photos via google drive?
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
drexlspivey 3y ago
The photos are great but they are overdone in post imo, especially the saturation, they don’t look real to me
- coldtea 3y ago
  Was the artists intention for them to look real?
  - yakubin 3y ago
    An artist intending something to look a certain way is the poorest defense of this way being good. To reduce it to absurdity, an artist can also say “I intend it to be bad”, and it still won’t make it good. Ultimately, judgement of a piece of art belongs fully to the audience.
    - coldtea 3y ago
      >To reduce it to absurdity, an artist can also say “I intend it to be bad”, and it still won’t make it good You'd be surprised. There's a whole lot of excellent art created with exactly that mindset. John Waters for starters... >Ultimately, judgement of a piece of art belongs fully to the audience. The audience are the last people who are qualified to judget a piece of art.
      - yakubin 3y ago
        Good art can be created even though the author intends it to be bad. But it isn’t this intention that makes it so. The audience are the only ones who can judge. Noone else will see it, after all. :)
    - gmiller123456 3y ago
      Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. A lot of people, myself included, like the saturated colors.
- crtasm 3y ago

jazzyjackson 3y ago

wow, didn't realize google places this bandwidth restriction on public shares are the full res photos 100MB digital negatives or what? would have made for a good demonstration of webtorrent

arghwhat 3y ago
A original in-camera JPEG is easily 10-15 MB, while the raws are easily 30-40MB each. Stacks up quickly. Granted, these are presumably edits from the raws, and a good AVIF or JXL export in full resolution should be more like... 5MB?

shkkmo 3y ago

> I guess I don't understand the choice to provide low-res on a per-photo basis, but high-res all or nothing. The low-res photos are hosted directly on WordPress while the archive is hosted on google drive. This may be due to bandwidth or storage constraints/costs or some oher such limitation.

nycdatasci 3y ago
Ah - that makes sense.
dTal 3y ago
But they could still offer individual photos via google drive?

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

drexlspivey 3y ago

The photos are great but they are overdone in post imo, especially the saturation, they don’t look real to me

coldtea 3y ago
Was the artists intention for them to look real?
- yakubin 3y ago
  An artist intending something to look a certain way is the poorest defense of this way being good. To reduce it to absurdity, an artist can also say “I intend it to be bad”, and it still won’t make it good. Ultimately, judgement of a piece of art belongs fully to the audience.
  - coldtea 3y ago
    >To reduce it to absurdity, an artist can also say “I intend it to be bad”, and it still won’t make it good You'd be surprised. There's a whole lot of excellent art created with exactly that mindset. John Waters for starters... >Ultimately, judgement of a piece of art belongs fully to the audience. The audience are the last people who are qualified to judget a piece of art.
    - yakubin 3y ago
      Good art can be created even though the author intends it to be bad. But it isn’t this intention that makes it so. The audience are the only ones who can judge. Noone else will see it, after all. :)
  - gmiller123456 3y ago
    Just because you don't like it doesn't make it bad. A lot of people, myself included, like the saturated colors.
crtasm 3y ago