Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: A Request on Sizing Your Photo's

Hybrid View

  1. #1
    rocketman
    Guest

    A Request on Sizing Your Photo's

    Lately I've seen a lot of great shots in the two most popular threads here and would like to request that any posting be limited to no more than 800 pixels wide, in those as well as any other photography thread. As everyone has no doubt noticed, when they run over the edge of a screen it can make reading the thread somewhat cumbersome. While I too love a good high quality image in all its glory could we perhaps provide links for the larger sizes and limit the image within the threads.

    Thanks

    RM

  2. #2
    Once there was a Tavern PAULBACH's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Ballston Spa, NY; South of the Adirondacks, North of the Catskills and West of The Berkshires and Green Mountains
    Posts
    6,822

    photobucket primer

    How about a quick primer to help those that are having problems?
    For example:

    When using photobucket click on one of the choices in the drop down box before uploading photos. There are 15 different choices. Depending on your needs try using:

    160 X 120 (small)
    320 x 240 (medium)
    640 x 480 (large)

    Using this method your photos stay unchanged on your computer and photobucket takes are of the heavy lifting.

    I'll leave other sites out there to folks who frequent those locations.
    Paul Bachorz - F Twins Moderator
    RA Rallymeister - Pownal, Vermont
    Click here.

  3. #3
    I Used to Be Someone sheridesabeemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Live Free & Ride, NH
    Posts
    3,859
    Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
    When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.
    Gail Hatch
    SheRidesABeemer's Blog
    05 R12GS
    87 K75CT

  4. #4
    Registered User xp8103's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Maine
    Posts
    1,551
    most modern PC screens aren't designed to run less than 1024 and in fact most all the flat screens that come with PCs now (and even the cheapest machines around) are designed to run at least 1280. I have a 2 year old Acer 22" on my desk that I run at 1680. 800x600 for pictures is more than reasonable. If you're looking at the internet in general at ANYTHING less than that you 1) should have a MUCH bigger monitor and 2) are used to scrolling anyhow.

    I found a nice simple freeware photo editor that allows easy resizing:
    http://www.softartstudio.com/photoscontrol/
    Nik #140220 - '88 K75C | '96 R1100RS | '77 R100RS | '06 DL650
    '01 525iT (oOO=00=OOo)

    Helmets don't save lives but loud pipes do?

  5. #5
    *censored*
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sonoma, CA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by SheRidesABeemer View Post
    Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
    When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.

    Understand that the forum adds a good number of pixels to the width of the display, not including the pictures. There's the column on the left, with our names and avatars, The spacing between the columns and then the spacing and framing on the right. It's not unreasonable to say that an 800x600 image fills the screen on a 1024 wide display because of all the extra width added by the forum.

    Consider also that most browsers add a header for program control, and a footer for information and you end up with a significantly shorter browser window as well.

    I'm using a 19" LCD set to 1152x764. Any higher resolution than that and I need a magnifying glass.

  6. #6
    *censored*
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sonoma, CA
    Posts
    398
    400x300:
    (Smugmug "small")


    600x450:
    (Smugmug "medium")


    800x600:
    (Smugmug "large")

  7. #7
    rocketman
    Guest
    Quote Originally Posted by PAULBACH View Post
    How about a quick primer to help those that are having problems?
    For example:

    When using photobucket click on one of the choices in the drop down box before uploading photos. There are 15 different choices. Depending on your needs try using:

    160 X 120 (small)
    320 x 240 (medium)
    640 x 480 (large)

    Using this method your photos stay unchanged on your computer and photobucket takes are of the heavy lifting.

    I'll leave other sites out there to folks who frequent those locations.
    Quote Originally Posted by BONEY View Post
    400x300:
    (Smugmug "small")


    600x450:
    (Smugmug "medium")


    800x600:
    (Smugmug "large")
    Thank you Paul and Boney for providing this info. While I have looked at number of photo sharing sites and software to get a pretty good idea on the most common features shared among them, such as auto-resizing from a single image and posting EXIF data I don't know the particulars of how its done in each as I host my own photos using Gallery II software, so if others would share their knowledge on the sites they use, it would be most appreciated.

    Again, I certain do not wish to alienate anyone by my request I was simply trying to consider what seems to work best for the most members. As I have stated before here and on other threads, this is your site, I see my role as more a guide than as an arbitrator or mod and endeavor to maintain a view of what seems to serve the greatest good for the membership based on what I perceive is in keeping with the desires of the membership as a whole.

    So please keep all those great images coming!
    And Boney I love the riot of colors in those images! Very nicely done.
    RM

  8. #8
    Registered User WildBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Boiling Springs, SC
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by SheRidesABeemer View Post
    Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
    When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.
    I agree here wholeheartedly. It is standard for me to re-size to 1024x768.

    Although, beyond a ride report I have posted (as seen HERE), I have not contributed here photographically. This rule would discourage me from doing so.

    Also, this forum is using the vBulletin Legacy (old) templates, but coming up to the current standard (as seen HERE) would move the user information to the top of the postbits effectively increasing the width.
    Chris
    2002 R1150R ABS, Black, 20,000+ Miles
    Life is a Game. Play to win.

  9. #9
    *censored*
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sonoma, CA
    Posts
    398
    If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.
    Some people may already skip the images and ride tales that require them to scroll all over the place to read the text and see the images. Consider it like a magazine gatefold. Would you take the time to unfold every page in a magazine to read an article? They're printed in a convenient format for a reason. Most images I've seen look best when I can see the whole thing. Conversely, if I can't see the whole thing it doesn't look good. We may not be doing our art any justice by providing oversize images for the viewers that can't see them as we intend.

    Quote Originally Posted by WildBlue View Post
    I agree here wholeheartedly. It is standard for me to re-size to 1024x768.

    Although, beyond a ride report I have posted (as seen HERE), I have not contributed here photographically. This rule would discourage me from doing so.

    Also, this forum is using the vBulletin Legacy (old) templates, but coming up to the current standard (as seen HERE) would move the user information to the top of the postbits effectively increasing the width.


    I've seen some great shots here by a great many people. It would truely be a loss if some chose not to participate because they're not willing to accomodate a simple request from the mod.

  10. #10
    Extra pieces? geobeemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    Algonquin,IL
    Posts
    173

    A simple view...

    I think the 800 X 600 looks just right and one does not loose any real resolution as the sample above demonstrates.

    Just another persons view....
    2000 K1200LT
    2001 R1150GS
    2009 KLR650

  11. #11
    Registered User WildBlue's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Boiling Springs, SC
    Posts
    286
    Quote Originally Posted by BONEY View Post
    I've seen some great shots here by a great many people. It would truely be a loss if some chose not to participate because they're not willing to accomodate a simple request from the mod.
    If I *only* posted here it would be no issue. But I post to at LEAST 4 boards. This rule would require a second set of resizing, uploading a second set of photos, and close to double the space on my web host. All for one site. Seeing as a lot of people post here and at least 2 of the other sites I visit (r1150r.net and adv), you can see why I would be reluctant.
    Chris
    2002 R1150R ABS, Black, 20,000+ Miles
    Life is a Game. Play to win.

  12. #12
    looking for a coal mine knary's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    pdx
    Posts
    5,878
    Quote Originally Posted by SheRidesABeemer View Post
    Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
    When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.
    Roughly 5% of our visitors are using a monitor set to 800x600. This is, as you note, both a tiny size and a small number of visitors.

    However, monitor size doesn't translate directly. Once you've taken in account tool bars, etc, you're down to 1000 or less pixels of usable space. Subtract the forum layout (a very common layout), and anything over 800 pixels wide for an image posted here is pushing it. Besides, if your image looks good at 800 pixels wide, it'll look good at 600. Conversely, bigger won't make it markedly better. In addition, many users on larger monitors don't open their browser windows to the full width of the screen. What might make for good image viewing isn't what's best for reading text.
    scott conary - BMW... err...umm... bikes are dangerous
    portland, oregon
    www.scottconary.com | new paintings

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •