Notice on image sizes in the forum

Speed isn't an issue for me, but I don't want to have to scroll around to see a whole image.

I have never had to scroll around to see a whole image and that is on a CRT screen and certainly not on an LCD either.

skieur
 
My older CRT screen size is 1920 by 1440 and some of my images go to 4500 wide or more, so I find that not everything reduces well to 800 by 600, sometimes resulting in banding, gradation problems, detail loss and chroma noise.

Even using Image Ready from Photoshop, there is a considerable quality loss, to 5% in some cases when reducing some of my large image files. One of the reasons that I limit my image posts.

skieur
 
OOps. Now I am in trouble. I just saw this, and I am a new member. I have not paid attention to my image sizes here at all. Would this size you have noted here also apply to our photo gallery? :D

Just a friendly little point that I've noticed recently and I think needs attention - especailly from our newer members on the site.

Although the forum does have a code to automatically resize any image in a post down to a managable size could people please refrain from having images larger than 1000pixels on the longest side in posts. They take an age to load and are an instant barrier to anyone using dailup (yes its still out there people) or are on a slower connection. 600 to 1000 pixels on the longest side is plenty large enough to display an image to the forum. If you have a larger version of the image then you can also put a link to it in your post - giving people the option to view the image large if they so desire.

This is also in your interest as people simply won't take time to wait for pages to load if they take an age, so that means less commentary on your work.

EDIT:
Also as it was late last night I missed this sticky, but it seems that 800pixels on the longest side is actual a rules requirement according to this sticky:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...forum-functions-pictoral-guide-using-tpf.html
I do admit it is a little hidden in there but it is part of the rules.
 
Wowa this thread came back from the grave! Normally its better to ask a mod direct or start a new thread than to bump one 4 years or so old.

That said far as I know the galleries should be fine with whatever you choose to upload since it displays at fixed sizes depending on user selection when viewing. That said you really don't need more than 1000 pixels on the longest side for a web showing of a photo - maybe a 100% crop or two thrown in if you want to show off details.
 
Be aware there is a file size limit for images in your Photo Gallery.
That file size limit is 3.5 Mb.

Pixel dimensions are not file size.
 
LOL; I never even thought to look at the date either. Sorry. I did post a thread without making the images the right size; but now that I know this, I will make the needed changes for future ones.

Wowa this thread came back from the grave! Normally its better to ask a mod direct or start a new thread than to bump one 4 years or so old.

That said far as I know the galleries should be fine with whatever you choose to upload since it displays at fixed sizes depending on user selection when viewing. That said you really don't need more than 1000 pixels on the longest side for a web showing of a photo - maybe a 100% crop or two thrown in if you want to show off details.
 
LOL, well nothing like a little resurrection event on the forum, eh? (sorry, the "eh" thing is a Canadian thing). I am on the "eh Team" :)

.........i never looked at the dates either,and liked 2 comments....lol
 
I suspect those on Dial Up would have images switched off by default for this type of forum.
 
Yes; I have had this happen too. When I cropped my images, some detail was lost, also the meta data was lost. I used irfanview, but have several programs that are for editing photos. Does anyone know solutions to this?
My older CRT screen size is 1920 by 1440 and some of my images go to 4500 wide or more, so I find that not everything reduces well to 800 by 600, sometimes resulting in banding, gradation problems, detail loss and chroma noise.

Even using Image Ready from Photoshop, there is a considerable quality loss, to 5% in some cases when reducing some of my large image files. One of the reasons that I limit my image posts.

skieur
 
Just a friendly little point that I've noticed recently and I think needs attention - especailly from our newer members on the site.

Although the forum does have a code to automatically resize any image in a post down to a managable size could people please refrain from having images larger than 1000pixels on the longest side in posts. They take an age to load and are an instant barrier to anyone using dailup (yes its still out there people) or are on a slower connection. 600 to 1000 pixels on the longest side is plenty large enough to display an image to the forum. If you have a larger version of the image then you can also put a link to it in your post - giving people the option to view the image large if they so desire.

This is also in your interest as people simply won't take time to wait for pages to load if they take an age, so that means less commentary on your work.

EDIT:
Also as it was late last night I missed this sticky, but it seems that 800pixels on the longest side is actual a rules requirement according to this sticky:
How to post pictures and use forum functions A pictoral guide to using TPF Photography Forum
I do admit it is a little hidden in there but it is part of the rules.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top