What in-thread max. image size do you want?

[back alley]

Was there a poll if we want to have that autosize feature? If not, this would be my question and not which size we want to have.

there was a suggestion in the how to improve rff thread...

 

[jbielikowski]

autosize sucks, sorry.

 

[Swift1]

800 at minimum, hopefully 1024.

 

[Dektol Dan]

Auto Size Sucks

Auto Size Sucks

autosize sucks, sorry.

I agree. I'd like to post it as I created it. If the image is from an imported URL why should the Forum Masters dictate how big it is? They should get offa my cloud, they aren't out anything!

Nowadays folks are slaves to cell phones and their limited image size, why should I live on a pin head when I am equipped to seriously photograph angels? I mean, how small is small enough? Get real!!!

Bring back the way it was, the sooner the better!

 

[Rob-F]

1024 for me, please.

 

[rluka]

Just want the image to be automatically centred
640px and click for detail

 

[Scrambler]

I agree. I'd like to post it as I created it. If the image is from an imported URL why should the Forum Masters dictate how big it is? They should get offa my cloud, they aren't out anything!

Nowadays folks are slaves to cell phones and their limited image size, why should I live on a pin head when I am equipped to seriously photograph angels? I mean, how small is small enough? Get real!!!

Bring back the way it was, the sooner the better!

I want people to see my drum-scanned LF in its full glory at gigapixel resolution...

Let's be real. The auto size shows an adequate preview. Click the image if you want the full size.

I for one find scrolling around the laptop screen to view images so annoying I often skip that picture altogether.

And the gallery shows reduced size previews. Should we have it only showing full rez?

PS and possibly we might prefer the smaller images to be stolen rather than the larger ones?

The savvy way would be to check screen size and resize to suit, or perhaps more simply to have a mobile/ lower rez site and a larger image site. More server space though.

 

[SausalitoDog]

How about finding a rocket scientist to create a "publish" preset to use in Lightroom.

I use LR to do my resizing and it's great - I was never able to get it right until I recently started using LR. But the extra step to upload each image to RFF is really clunky compared to the publish services that are supported by Flickr and many others...

Don't know what this entails but I would support it with a contribution to cover costs...

 

[back alley]

the things we feel strongly about...

 

[f16sunshine]

the things we feel strongly about...

Yeah it is but still some middle ground must be met.
I think the method as it is now is as good as it gets. Maybe 800 0r 1024 should be the native.
Whatever the size.... linking to the original in a new tab is great!.
Thank you !

 

[uhoh7]

1024 should be allowed, but smaller too.

Old way was much nicer than the new one.

 

[user237428934]

Yeah it is but still some middle ground must be met.
I think the method as it is now is as good as it gets. Maybe 800 0r 1024 should be the native.
Whatever the size.... linking to the original in a new tab is great!.
Thank you !

Why do we need some middle ground? If people with small devices used forumrunner then there was no need for making a compromise for the big devices (=high resolution screens).

 

[user237428934]

The autosize feature has a bug on safari. If I click on the tiny little stamp of an image that is linked correctly to flickr then two windows open: one with the full size view and one with the flickr page of the image.

 

[sem]

would like 1024 but 800 is also pretty good for me

 

[biomed]

1024 seems to display nicely on most monitors. I limit my portrait image posts to 800 vertical to minimize scrolling.

 

[Sparrow]

1024 seems to display nicely on most monitors. I limit my portrait image posts to 800 vertical to minimize scrolling.

... that's what I did up to the changes

 

[back alley]

my ipad mini automatically resizes image size and makes the font smaller in a post with an image in it.

 

[f16sunshine]

Why do we need some middle ground? If people with small devices used forumrunner then there was no need for making a compromise for the big devices (=high resolution screens).

Hi Tom

Forum Runner shows many error messages especially when trying to open threads with images enclosed.
For example I can not even open the Portraits thread, show your M thread, Monochrom etc.... Any long thread with images I get a Parsing error message or clock out.
I agree that the present size is too small but the method is a good compromise.
If the "thumb" was 1024 with the original automatically embedded to open in another tab when clicked ... it would be the best compromise.

 

[gb hill]

Large enough to view but not so large i have to side scroll to read comments. So I guess that would be 800? I'll vote 800.

 

[farlymac]

800, and no bigger! Scrolling to see a whole photo kind of ruins the experience. But I've had to reduce the size of my photos to 640 max because I post them on other sites, and I'm not going to have multiple file sizes just to satisfy all the different standards.

PF