images in posts, please read

[back alley]

i have notice an increase in posting images directly into a thread.

i have no problem with this at all.

i do ask, PLEASE, keep them to a size that can be seen without having to move the page back & forth.

it's annoying and it makes reading the thread a pita also.

and we can't fully appreciate your image as a whole.

joe

 

[Rich Silfver]

joe, thanks. what's the recommended file size for posting in threads?
650-700 pixels on the long side?

 

[back alley]

i need someone more savvy to figure that out for me.

most of my thumbnails are set at 850 on the long side and they seem to fit when enlarged.

 

[c.poulton]

I still haven’t figured out how to do this yet...:bang:

 

[T_om]

Computers only know pixels. If you have PhotoShop, do a "Save For Web" on shots you want to post here. Keep the width to about 600 pixels and you should be fine.

Save For Web settings can be adjusted. Make sure if you are reducing the size (the most common use for "Save For Web") you have "Bicubic Sharper" selected as the reduction method.

Tom

 

[Rich Silfver]

i need someone more savvy to figure that out for me.

most of my thumbnails are set at 850 on the long side and they seem to fit when enlarged.

Thanks, it would be nice to have some official guideline on how big the images are allowed to be - rather than 'not too big' 🙂

 

[rover]

Lets make 800 pixels official then for the wide size. I don't think there has to be formal rules for everything, but there you go.

 

[sf]

I like your new Avatar, Joe. More people are going with gear images for avatars. . .I like it.

 

[RayPA]

Lets make 800 pixels official then for the wide size. I don't think there has to be formal rules for everything, but there you go.

You mean the LONG side, right? 🙂

🙂

 

[rover]

I already said I don't like rules. Everyone knows what Joe mentioned makes sense. 😉

Yes, the long side, 800 pixels should work out fine.

 

[back alley]

long side, yes.

 

[richard_l]

How much (relative) space an image takes up in the monitor depends on the resolution of the monitor. If the monitor is set at 800x600, then an 800x600 image (shown full size) will take up the entire monitor. If the monitor is set at 1024x768 resolution, an 800x600 image will take up approximately 3/4 of the horizontal and vertical dimensions of the monitor. (800/1024 and 600/768 are each approximately equal to 3/4.) Similarly for other monitor resolutions and image sizes.

Richard

P.S. It ain't rocket science, rover.

 

[back alley]

in the end, this is doable...right?

joe

 

[richard_l]

Anyone knows if there is a smart way to do scaling of an image ref in html ? Let's say the original is 1000x800 how can I get it down in an IMG type
link to 700x... without rescaling the picture ?

Thanks,

Roland.

In standard HTML you can specify the pixel width and height of the image on a web page, but it is considered bad HTML if the pixel dimensions specified are not the same as those of the original image. I.e., it is a bad way to resize an image.

Richard

 

[richard_l]

in the end, this is doable...right?

joe

Yes.

Except my first Windows machine had a 640x480 monitor, so an 800x600 image would have required horizontal as well as vertical scrolling. However, surely everybody today (especially photographers) has a monitor capable of much higher resolution.

Richard

 

[Goodyear]

Can you send me an email how, Richard ?

Trouble is, that's for HTML. The forum IMG tags aren't HTML - it BBcode or something similar, and I don't know if it has that facility.

IMO (nothing H here 🙂 ) 800 is too wide - specifying a dimension won't stop the problem for everyone unless it's a small dimension. Whoever suggested 600 is probably closer to the mark. A bigger width assumes high-ish screen resolutions and/or a maximised browser window. Of course, it could be argued that over a certain baseline (800 or 600, whatever) it's really up to the user how they view the site and there's no way a poster can take account of this.

Smaller images will save our various hosting providers some money, as well 🙂

 

[rover]

See, rules suck.

 

[RayPA]

Trouble is, that's for HTML. The forum IMG tags aren't HTML - it BBcode or something similar, and I don't know if it has that facility.

IMO (nothing H here 🙂 ) 800 is too wide - specifying a dimension won't stop the problem for everyone unless it's a small dimension. Whoever suggested 600 is probably closer to the mark. A bigger width assumes high-ish screen resolutions and/or a maximised browser window. Of course, it could be argued that over a certain baseline (800 or 600, whatever) it's really up to the user how they view the site and there's no way a poster can take account of this.

Smaller images will save our various hosting providers some money, as well 🙂

Attempting to standardize this is a good first step, and again the max length is 800 on the LONG side, and NOT wide.

🙂

 

[raid]

i have notice an increase in posting images directly into a thread.

i have no problem with this at all.

i do ask, PLEASE, keep them to a size that can be seen without having to move the page back & forth.

it's annoying and it makes reading the thread a pita also.

and we can't fully appreciate your image as a whole.

joe

Joe,
While you're on this topic, what are the commands for posting an image inside a thread? I don't think that I ever managed to post an image.

Also, maybe you can forward my request to the powers in charge here to please consider a software that automatically resizes any posted image to a certain size.



Regards,

Raid

 

[ClaremontPhoto]

A lot of people can see only 780px on a 'standard 17" screen', and that includes the chrome (scroll bars and so on) so way less is a considerate way to go. Yep, I can see way more than 780px and so can many of us, but we need to design for everybody's screen and take account of everybody's connection speed.

Personally I go for 480px wide anywhere on the web. If people want bigger than that they can get new glasses.

I have stopped looking in RFF W/NW because of the over-large images and over-long download times.