Threads bloated by oversize pictures

[Rob-F]

I like to see pictures that fill my screen. But I don't like having to rock the picture back and forth, and up and down, to see all of it. Can a limit be placed on file sizes for display in the forum? Other will know better than I exactly what that limit should be, but a a starting point, let me suggest something like 600 high by 900 wide. Or maybe it can be just a bit larger--but not so large that one can only see 1/4 of the image at a time. Thanks!

Edit: ANd another thing: once the thread has become bloated by an oversize picture, then we have to rock the text back and forth as well--for every single line! There must be a better way.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

The latest version of phpbb lets an image extend as far beyond the right-hand margin as necessary, but keeps the text portions of posts on the left, with a limited right-hand margin, so all text is on the screen without side-scrolling. Perhaps there is a new version of vBulletin that has the same feature, and the board could be upgraded to it?

 

[climbing_vine]

A css rule could be specified that sets the max-width on img elements. Unfortunately, this fails on IE7 and lower on Windows (what a shock), so you need a Javascript trick to augment it (or just decide to let people using ****ty browsers deal with it). It is pretty trivial.

It's not as good as resizing because you're wasting bandwidth, but it's the best you can do without running a cache-resize-relay image server.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

Perhaps just make it a rule? Nothing over 800 pixels wide (I use a pretty smally screen most of the time).

 

[jonmanjiro]

Another vote here for a maximum of 800 pixel wide images. I find that 800 pixels is large enough for a quality image but not so large that you have to scroll the page to see it all.

 

[dcsang]

These "rules" tend to change depending on how quickly newer (or somewhat new) technology gets picked up by users. I still try to design my own sites for 800x600 max resolution but lately I've noted more 1024x768 sites and more people browsing at higher resolutions due to the fact that lcd monitors (and specifically 16x9 format monitors) seem to be more prevalent now that they have come down in price from a number of years ago. That said, I still think if one designs and accommodates for images the size suggested (900 pixels wide x 600 pixels "tall") we'd all be "ok" for the most part.

There may be some folks still viewing at 800x600 that would get perturbed mind you but I really think they may be in the lower percentage rather than upper.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Al Kaplan]

I don't have a clue about how any of that works. I know that on my blog some pix can get too big for the screen if you click on an image. Otherwise they seem big enough to see OK.

http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com

Caution: There are some naked people on the blog! 😱

 

[Dave Wilkinson]

I like to see pictures that fill my screen. But I don't like having to rock the picture back and forth, and up and down, to see all of it. Can a limit be placed on file sizes for display in the forum? Other will know better than I exactly what that limit should be, but a a starting point, let me suggest something like 600 high by 900 wide. Or maybe it can be just a bit larger--but not so large that one can only see 1/4 of the image at a time. Thanks!

Edit: ANd another thing: once the thread has become bloated by an oversize picture, then we have to rock the text back and forth as well--for every single line! There must be a better way.

It has been a source of annoyance to me for a long time! - as most of my time here is spent on the laptop. When a particularly long post has to be moved side to side continually, I just don't bother any more!, and I suspect there are those who think a massive presentation will improve a mundane picture!🙂
Dave.

 

[35mmdelux]

Why not let the pix be the size of a small index card and if you want big click on them? There must be some way short of calling Bill Gates.

 

[Darkhorse]

I'm a mod at another message board that uses vbulletin v 3.7. For quite some time larger images have been automatically downscaled to the set width, however there's a tab at the top of the image that allows you to see the full-sized image when clicked. I'm sure something could easily be added to the board software here to allow for something similar.

 

[johannielscom]

Well, I was planning to link some pictures from my web site to a post here, and I use 850px width there to fill the column.

I'm not going to resize all my shots for RFF, you'll just have to take a look at them on www.portretteur.nl and flickr (buzzardkid).

I do feel for a script that will automatically resize to 800px on the long side. Currently I'm not posting here at all, since posting requires resizing, a file size limit, a maximum number of uploads and what else.

No wonder there are more gearheads here than photographers by now.

 

[dcsang]

Why not let the pix be the size of a small index card and if you want big click on them? There must be some way short of calling Bill Gates.

Bill Gates (well, his corporation perhaps) is part of the problem.

There have been standards produced by the W3C for almost as long as the Web has been around and Microsoft, specifically, never followed those standards. As such, there is code that will work in most other browsers (Firefox, Chrome, Safari, Opera etc.) because they comply with these standards but Internet Explorer refuses to do so.

So while some coding can be done to "help" this annoyance, it won't work for everyone. 🙂

People should be personally responsible and understand that, just because your camera can take an image that is 5600x3750 pixels doesn't mean that one has to post that image size online 😀

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Roger Hicks]

Add my voice to the p*ssed-off. I wish people would either link or resize. And an awful lot of the oversize shots are 'look at the bokeh behind my cat' which makes them even less tolerable.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Pherdinand]

It's annoying indeed. And i use IExplorer 8 when onWindows, and it still has the same problem.

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

And an awful lot of the oversize shots are 'look at the bokeh behind my cat' which makes them even less tolerable.

Big Cat

😀



I just post pictures from Flickr, so resizing isn't a problem. My only complaint is that Flickr doesn't have anything between 500 and 1024 pixels wide.

 

[FrankS]

There is a nifty image resizer tool available for window xp on this site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Quick and easy to resize, no need to open a bloated graphics program to do so. You can even resize while in the Browse mode during the process of posting a pic.

 

[johannielscom]

There is a nifty image resizer tool available for window xp on this site:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx
Quick and easy to resize, no need to open a bloated graphics program to do so. You can even resize while in the Browse mode during the process of posting a pic.

I say we ask the techies to go with Darkhorses' script solution, the above tool doesn't run on Mac or Linux and will still result in non-standard uploads, which are hard to manage.

I'd be most obliged if the restrictions on the gallery uploads would be lifted using the same script, I currently run all my shots outside RFF while spending most my time by far here, very sad. Would not mind paying a fee to get access to simpler upload and thus contribute to increased server load either.

 

[blackwave]

I'm a mod at another message board that uses vbulletin v 3.7. For quite some time larger images have been automatically downscaled to the set width, however there's a tab at the top of the image that allows you to see the full-sized image when clicked. I'm sure something could easily be added to the board software here to allow for something similar.

That's what APUG does :angel: It works very well!

 

[dcsang]

I've seen scripts like Darkhorses on other sites I believe. They work quite well.
I think eliminating the use of the tag altogether is a bad thing. I use that tag in order that I don't overload the RFF server with my images. I let them be hosted on my site and therefore they're all in one place.

Cheers,
Dave

 

[Andrew Sowerby]

I think eliminating the use of the tag altogether is a bad thing. I use that tag in order that I don't overload the RFF server with my images. I let them be hosted on my site and therefore they're all in one place.[/QUOTE]

Agreed!

...........................