Notice on image sizes in the forum

Overread · Nov 12, 2009

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.

skieur · Nov 12, 2009

I think that you should actually take a poll and find out whether there really are members on dial-up connections and what their numbers are. I know for sure that in Canada and the US, the vast majority, if not all are on cable, satelite or fast DSL connections. This is even more the case in some parts of Europe.

skieur

Josh66 · Nov 12, 2009

Even with a cable connection full res pictures take forever to load.

If there are more than one of them, I just hit the back button and move on to the next thread.

PhotoXopher · Nov 12, 2009

My parents are on dial-up, no other option for them out in the boonies :lol:

And yes, some of the images lately are full-res and take forever to load - even with high-speed connections.

TJ K · Nov 12, 2009

skieur said:
I think that you should actually take a poll and find out whether there really are members on dial-up connections and what their numbers are. I know for sure that in Canada and the US, the vast majority, if not all are on cable, satelite or fast DSL connections. This is even more the case in some parts of Europe.

skieur

I think we should take a poll on how ridiculous it is to wait for a huge pic to load no matter what the connection is here or canada. It's annoying and inconsiderate thats what he was saying.

skieur · Nov 12, 2009

I am on DSL not cable, and I have no problem whatsoever with large images and my cost is cheaper than cable by $20 plus dollars per month.

skieur

Pugs · Nov 12, 2009

I have cable at home and the full-size pics are not a problem there. I also have a Sprint wireless broadband card that I use a LOT and that bogs down with the larger pics.

notsue · Nov 12, 2009

I live in the woods, in the middle of nowhere, and we've got satelite because the phone lines are not good enough for dial up, and cable doesnt come out here.
I'd be better off on dial up, satelite is a joke. I'm glad I dont pay for this because its the worst connection I've ever had to use.

Bitter Jeweler · Nov 12, 2009

The funny thing is, you don't need anything more than 72dpi 800x600 to be critiqued on a beginners forum.

Overread · Nov 13, 2009

Just out of interest also - how many people can view a 3000*2000 (or larger) image on their computer along with the regular forum content? Because I know I can't even come close to viewing an image that large.

Also as it was late last night I missed this sticky, but it seems that 800 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.

Myself I agree with Bitter - it doesn't matter about the level of the photographer (I only put the thread here because beginners are the most common to post overly large images and its also the most active posting area currently - plus it would have spammed up the galleries) the fact is much can be told direct from a smaller shot on the net. If one is keen on getting comments on the fullsize I again say that its better to link to it or even just use a 100% crop.

As an additional point does the resizer here even run a sharpening code when it resizes? If not then people are losing image sharpness as a part of the auto resizing anyway.

Pugs · Nov 13, 2009

Quick, cheap (free), and easy image resizer: VSO Image Resizer.

For me, being able to run it on a whole boatload of pics at once is easier than in PS or LR (though I may be missing a better way in those programs).

Plus, it'll let you watermark your pics if you're into that sort of thing like I am.

I'm glad to learn that 800/longedge is a forum rule.

Josh66 · Nov 13, 2009

Pugs said:
(though I may be missing a better way in those programs)

I do it upon export in LR. I have a preset for it. (Pretty easy to set up.)

I go to the export menu... Export with preset...Resized Export, Normal Export, etc...

Overread · Nov 13, 2009

Myself I only have photoshop elements - so no fancy actions - just a bit of:

edit fullsized image (inc sharpening)- save (as a PSD in my case)
resize image to 2000 on the longest side
sharpen image as needed
resize image to 1000 on the longest side
sharpen image as needed
Save image as JPEG.

It then goes to flickr and they resize down to 500 on the longest side which appears here in the forums with a direct link to the 1000. In the past (pre flickr) I had another step of resize and sharpen after that to get down to around 720on the longest side - uploading both JPEGs to the net and working from there.

Honestly it might take a few minutes, but if your keen on working on your images its a nessessary step to prepare them as best for the viewing audience - otherwise your doing yourself a discredit.

Felix0890 · Nov 13, 2009

This is especially annoying when it comes to those that post more than 3 images per post. Even with my high speed internet (fastest available in my area) it's annoying as hell to wait for 10 full-sized pictures to load.

Thanks for bringing this up Overread.