So far I always use 1024 px as the maximum horizontal dimension when incorporating images in a thread, e.g. 1024x683 px for a 3:2 image or 1024x768 px for a 4:3 image. However, I'd like to show some pictures in larger dimensions but that may not be convenient for people with smaller screens. I made up a poll to get feedback on this. The answers are based on 4:3 horizontal images, as a guideline the dimensions of a vertical pictures would be about 75 % of the horizontal dimension. So what do you think? Edit: poll removed, wasn't relevant.
I haven't voted yet Ad as I usually post at 2000 horizontal as that is what I upload to Flickr. 2000 is not one of your options. I visit this forum mostly via my iPad and most photos here seem to self adjust. If a 2000 width is a problem for others I'd like to know.
Thanks Barry, added a few extra larger sizes, I realize there are people who have screens 2560 px wide. In general I personally don't like to have to scroll when viewing an image, that's why I restrict myself to smaller dimensions. Curious to see what others think about that.
I hadn't considered that Ad so will wait for replies and adjust my upload size accordingly if it proves an issue. I wouldn't want to have to scroll either. Cheers Snowy
I thought the web server was smart enough to downsize each image for the individual user's screen/browser size. The pages then loads to fit your screen, but when you hover the mouse over an image, you get a "Click this image to show the full-size version". Because of that, I stopped using a thumbnail with a link to the larger image and just started posting all images at 2048 on the maximum size. That choice was for me due do Google images allowing unlimited uploads of files as long as they were no larger than that.
Just a test of an image 1600 px wide, with click-through option to see the original full-size picture. {}
... and you're right, never thought of doing that. Makes the poll rather pointless , I removed it. Oh well, learned something again, apparently I was underestimating the power of the forum software.
Yep, the new forum software seems to be pretty good with scaling images. But what when using Flickr to embed images as I prefer to do? I usually post at 1024 pixels wide as well. So just for the sake of testing it, let me try a full size image: {} Edit: The forum also scales down these images. But as it has to load them in full resolution before, it makes the thread very slow and unresponsive, at least on the 6 year old MacBook Pro I'm on right now. So I'll keep posting smaller, although the 1600 pixel wide option seems to be a good choice. (Replaced the image for a 1600 px wide version to keep the thread stable)
Exactly. Generally the rescaling isn't a feature of the server. The html code will tell the browser what size the image should be. You download the entire image at full size and then the browser scales it down.
I used to post on a forum which required resizing before uploading a photo. Not many could do it so there weren't many photos posted. I'm glad I don't have to worry about that here. Life has gotten so much easier with the advancement of technology, at least in this instance.
This is s feature of the browser window. to test you can just resize your browser window and you will see the image shrinks accordingly.
Not to get too off topic.... I think Sony offers a similar unlimited storage of size limited images. But Google's user agreement doesn't bide well with me. All images are granted co-ownership for life to Google. Actually, any and all files crossing any of their services are automatically granted co-ownership to Google. So, I personally wouldn't use Picasa Web, or Google+ for storage. Back to the sizing. 1024 is pretty universal. I think of the load on the servers and the speed of opening up a thread is more important. Since the full size is a link to off site, it lessens the burden on this site and its viewers. Tried 1600 (offered by flickr) here and it seems to be as fast and a bigger image is had by all.
Too Big? {} this was actually a test of Pano photo merge in LR6/LRCC whatever it is called. took two veritcal pano's with the a7ii in camera pano then stitched the two of them together with LR
2048 seems to be the standard for social sites so i upload to flickr that size in case i feel like downloading and posting later. I use 1024 on forums
I prefer flickr embedded images (BBcode) at around 1024. If people want to click through and check the full size image (for lens tests, etc) it's super easy to do.
That's what I did so far but I think I'm going to use 1600 px wide so that my viewers see the picture at the larger size in their browser; that's the maximum fixed width that Smugmug provides in their links to share pics. I'd rather have 2000 px indeed, for that I'd have to use Flickr apparently. If I want to give the option to look at the original, I'll surround the IMG tag with a URL tag pointing to the original with BB code.
1600 px is what I use...unless it's vertical, then I use something smaller so there's less scrolling required. Vertical images on 16:9 screens just aren't great.
I guess ignorance is bliss in my case...I upload a photo to Photobucket, then post the Photobucket URL in a thread on a Forum(s)...never gave any thought to sizing a photo
Ignorance wasn't bliss in my case for some time no one dared load my pics for fear of supreme browser crashing and cache overload.... now i resize to 1600 and upload to the forum for simplicity
I forgot about that. And believe it or not, there are people that still use dial-up modems! (Although that's not too good for a photography related forum). I could certainly go back to posting a smaller image in the threads, and enable it as a hyperlink to the larger image on Google+. I used to use half-size (1024 longest side) when I did that. I never paid for a Flickr account, so don't use it any more, as I don't want to hit the maximum number of images and lose older ones. I may check into others.
