A Request - Posting Photos

[brad]

Hey y'all... when attaching/posting photos, do you think we can please keep the image size under 800 pixels wide? Not all of us are running greater than 1024x768 and not all of us are on DSL or T1 lines.

Not only does it take forever for your images to load, but they can't be 100% seen on the screen.

Besides, if you are showing your photos to the public (in an online gallery or whatever) and not just to your fellow photographers, its good to keep those things in mind as well.. so think of it as practice. :)

[Hogleg 44]

Originally Posted by brad

Hey y'all... when attaching/posting photos, do you think we can please keep the image size under 800 pixels wide? Not all of us are running greater than 1024x768 and not all of us are on DSL or T1 lines.

Not only does it take forever for your images to load, but they can't be 100% seen on the screen.

Besides, if you are showing your photos to the public (in an online gallery or whatever) and not just to your fellow photographers, its good to keep those things in mind as well.. so think of it as practice. :)

I agree,
FWIW, I'm keeping mine 640, to 700, absolute max. I hate scrolling to the right and left to read all of the text on my 1024 screen!

[srwatters]

I totally agree. Even with a fast connection, scrolling is no good. You totally lose the ability to see what the image is all about.

I do my best to post no bigger than 600x480 or 600x400 (4x5 or 2x3). Flip those dimensions for landscape, maybe just a touch wider but no more than 720 wide.

It's very easy to use the crop/resize tool to get these dimensions.

[HighPlainsDox]

No argument from me, Brad. I personally keep my web images to 640 x 480 (max.) so I can see the whole image on one screen. My monitor is set to 800 x 600 resolution, and I'm sure there are others that use it, too.

[Roy]

Sorry, I've been posting most of mine at 800 wide max but I can cut it down to 640 or less if it will help. Guess I'm used to this 21" monitor and 1280x1024 for too many years.

[brad]

Originally Posted by Roy

Sorry, I've been posting most of mine at 800 wide max but I can cut it down to 640 or less if it will help. Guess I'm used to this 21" monitor and 1280x1024 for too many years.

Yea.. and that's just it and why I tried to make a "gentle" nudge. 800 wide is just barely too wide when its in the middle of a message to be displayed on a 1024 wide screen...

I stay at 1024 because I still do software development and web page design that has a target audience that is running at that resolution (sometimes they are even 800x600!) ... and it serves as a great reminder to keep my screen designs inside those boundaries.

[Roy]

Gentle nudge accepted.
Adjusted every photo I uploaded today from 800 max wide to 640 max wide. Hope it helps and sorry for any problems it may have created.

[jerrykr]

a question?

on other boards, people also ask that you keep the resized version at about 150K or so.

I usually resize to 640x480, and save as a jpg with a quality level that is around 150K.

Does that work for dial-up users here?

This is only for files of pics that I intend to post. If I am processing for printing, etc. I save that file version at highest quality, but I only post the little one.

[rott]

Not sure if this is a viable option or not, but since phpBB (the software behind this forum) uses its own tags ([img] rather than html <img>), why not automatically insert width="640" into the generated html? That way people don't necessarily have to rescale any images, except file size to save bandwidth of course.

Just a suggestion.

[KeithAlanK]

Rott, while that would work, I object to letting forum software resize my photos with the possible side-effects that can generate. It's better if we all do it ourselves.

[EricL]

640x480 Sounds great to me. There are times when I literally go get something to eat or drink or go get rid of something I had to eat or drink while pics download. Anyway to set it up so that no matter what size is submitted, it will only display 640x480?
EricL

[bburton]

Originally Posted by KeithAlanK

Rott, while that would work, I object to letting forum software resize my photos with the possible side-effects that can generate. It's better if we all do it ourselves.

I agree with Keith that the Forum should NOT automatically impose a set limit on the size of photos posted. While I don't mind resizing to 800x600 or slightly less, I've found with some of my pics, the quality at 640x480 is not up to my posting standards. :(

[jeffkohn]

Problem is for those of us running high-res monitors, 640x480 images lack impact. My desktop runs at 1440x1080; a 640x480 image landscape shot with lots of fine detail in it just doesn't make an impression when it's taking up less than 1/4 of my screen. I size my web images to be 800 pixels wide or 700 pixels tall, which is probably about right to avoid scrolling on the vast majority of desktops and still makes the images big enough to make a decent impression. Plus, if your images are 800 pixels or smaller in the longest dimension PBase won't generate its own (inferior) "large" version of your shots.

As for download speed, JPG quality probably makes more difference than the image dimensions. Still I hate to compromise, so they usually end up in the 200-300K range. Maybe that's a bit slow on dial-up, I don't know it's been so long. I just hate to upload something that I don't think does justice to the original because of limited size or compression issues.