Needs Help: Screw You Elves

For once, I'm gonna downvote a downsize; the elvish features in the first panel are completely indistinct at that size.

Agreeing with that. Unless we find a better image, it simply needs to be that large to work.

If it needs to be that large to work, then it doesn't.

Eh, I see your point but I don't necessarily agree, at least in this case. I cropped a bit out of the pic; how's this?

Still too tall IMO, could lose lots of pixels off the bottom of the bottom frame, make them the same height.

I might pothole the end of the first line in that caption (the hyphen maybe?) to Killed Mid-Sentence and leave both the second and third lines off.

edited 13th Sep '12 8:31:42 PM by rodneyAnonymous

I like the caption idea, but making it a square pic would cut the rightmost elf out of the pic. I cropped out a bit more space.

As an alternative, there's this that I made from this Errant Story strip. We could probably just get away with the one panel but I like the second for making clear that a different language is being spoken.

Quick question: What's the difference between the height of the proposed image here and the image on Stupid Sexy Friend? Dovakhiin v. Thalmor is a bit wide and tall but not so much that you need to scroll down to see the entire thing.

That image is also way too tall. Just because there isn't a technical height limit on the Image Uploader* doesn't mean there is a practical one. "Hangs down into the examples on a common monitor res/size" (1280x960?) is the "standard" threshold, though mine is about 350 pixels tall for portrait (since it's 350 wide for landscape...). I have seen this opinion expressed by moderation at least twice, but can't find the threads. (Looking...)

* That page says "Most folks who view the site are using 1280 or less screen width, so image widths should be kept within the 250px-350px range, at most. Images wider than that will be rejected." If this was translated into height instead of width, the max would be less than that, since monitor height is usually lower than width.

edited 14th Sep '12 1:37:22 PM by rodneyAnonymous

On the other hand, a less wide screen means that the trope description will have more lines than on a larger monitor, which means there's a bigger chance the picture won't be longer than the description.

My take: A pic should be as wide and tall as it needs to be to get the trope across. If A and B do the same thing equally well but A's smaller than B, then by all means use A, but we shouldn't be going out of our way to pooh-pooh pics because of an arbitrary notion of size equaling usefulness. Has anyone actually made a sandbox to play around with the suggestions so far to see how they fit on screens?

Also, thoughts on the webcomic suggestion vs. the Skyrims?

That's implicit in the comment.

edited 14th Sep '12 1:39:38 PM by Willbyr

^ I don't think it is.

"A pic should be as wide and tall as it needs to be to get the trope across."

It can't be wider than 350 pixels though. It can be taller than that just because there is no technical limitation? There is no technical limitation to the number of donuts you can take from the plate in the break room...

edited 14th Sep '12 1:43:37 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Every De/Re-JPEG of that image adds more JPEG compression artifacting. If the last iteration of the Thalmor Cut-Down is good, I'll imitate the crop dimensions off of my own source file.

IMO, the comic panel candidate requires too much reading to get the point across. With the Skyrim one I made, you see three elves turning their nose up at a human, and then the next panel is the human standing over their fresh corpses, putting his sword away.

edited 14th Sep '12 1:45:55 PM by MadCat221

Everyone that has any working knowledge of IP and the process knows that images are hard-capped at 350 px width...it's rather pedantic to stretch that comment beyond our knowledge base.

I'm good with either of the last two versions of the Skyrim pic. That said, the comic suggestion has the benefits of: not needing a caption since the trope sentiment is evident in the dialogue; the character in the foreground is more obviously an elf; and it doesn't require two panels to get the trope across. The second panel can be dropped and not hurt the pic.

edited 14th Sep '12 1:49:21 PM by Willbyr

I'm not actually seeing that in those pics. Is it the same human in the top and bottom panels? If so, I can't tell. Additionally, only the one without a hat is obviously an elf - the others could be any humanoid species as far as I can tell. And to top it all off, they don't seem to be sneering at the human to me.

edited 14th Sep '12 1:52:08 PM by ccoa

I was wondering that myself...the masks don't seem to match up between the panels.

*blink* Really? That's never crossed my mind in the entire time I've been contributing here.

edited 14th Sep '12 1:53:36 PM by Willbyr

I know the hard width cap is well-known. I am saying that implies a soft height cap.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand, ccoa echoes my thoughts. It is rather hard to tell it's Elves/magical race in the Skyrim pics.

Going to re-shoot with the robe wearing the hoodless variant for more knife-ear goodness. Hopefully his hair underneath doesn't hide the ears...

I'm presuming similar facial structure,skin tone and uniforms is enough to imply that the helmeted guy is an elf too.

If I remove the helmet on the Human, then it isn't "Marketing Posterboy Dragonborn", though.

edited 14th Sep '12 2:07:25 PM by MadCat221

Yeah, we need to see somewhat clearer what is what in the pics. I ought have said that earlier.

I have no idea what "Marketing Posterboy Dragonborn" is, but the helmet isn't necessary to understand the trope and is in fact actively hurting understanding.

I'd vote for the Errant Story pic, myself.

edited 14th Sep '12 2:46:05 PM by ccoa

The Starscraper IP thread (which is about an image that is potentially very tall, for which we made an exception, though there is a commented-out note in that article on where to find a shorter version if that one is admin vetoed) has a few examples:

"It's generally not a good idea to have an image too much longer than the description." (note that person was not a mod at the time). Also, from someone who is: "We have no official rule saying "this many pixels tall and absolutely no taller under any circumstance." We do have a general guideline that the page image shouldn't extend into the examples."

There are others, on other subjects (will post if I can find/remember), but "images shouldn't hang past the description into the examples" is definitely a guideline here. Of course there are exceptions, very few hard-and-fast rules, but there's no reason to make one here. "Images shouldn't be taller than the width limit, either" is a personal preference but I think it's pretty solid. The overall size (width x height, or square pixels) should be considered, not just one dimension, that's ridiculous. I'm not just being a Rules Lawyer or something, page images being too big looks ugly and unprofessional.

edited 14th Sep '12 2:47:45 PM by rodneyAnonymous

Rodney, take it to wiki talk. One obscure IP thread is not the place to debate image size policy.

I am not debating policy, I am pointing out established policy.

We don't have an established policy. Your links even admit this.

edited 14th Sep '12 2:50:04 PM by ccoa