Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 23

Thread: A Request on Sizing Your Photo's

  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.

  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
    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.

  8. #8
    *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.

  9. #9
    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

  10. #10
    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.

  11. #11
    *censored*
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Sonoma, CA
    Posts
    398
    Quote Originally Posted by WildBlue View Post
    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.
    If your images run over the edges of my screen here, what makes you think that they won't do it over there either? (see earlier post about taking away from your art) I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just sayin'...

    I can see how the right sided column in the 1150r board would accomodate bigger pictures, but ADVRider is using the same software as here.

  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.

  13. #13
    Cam Killer marchyman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    SF Bay Area
    Posts
    3,402
    Quote Originally Posted by WildBlue View Post
    If I *only* posted here it would be no issue.
    Also, not every camera uses the 4:3 aspect ratio that looks good at 800x600. My camera, assuming no crops, is 3:2. My "web quality" is currently 900:600 (or something close). That still looks pretty small on my 19200 x 1200 monitor even thought I'm using less than 1/2 of the width for my browser.

    // marc

  14. #14
    rocketman
    Guest
    Well I certainly didn't mean to start a major discussion on this issue, it was as I said a request.
    This came about by the fact that I have noticed that images of late seem to be getting larger and larger making it necessary to scroll a good bit to see them and once a single image overruns the screen it effects the entire page. I chose 800 based also on the fact that several photo sites (such as Dgrin) request that size in their contests and in fact will rule your submission out if you go beyond this. So I took what seems to still be a fairly standard size based on info from the pro sites I'm on.

    And as several folks have pointed out, when you take into account the forum software side bars and any sidebars in your browser anything over 800 or so on a 1024 width screen causes you to either have to narrow the sidebar of you browser or scroll in the image/post area. I did also consider that for many photo sharing sites you can pick a display size from a drop down menu and many seem to also include a tool for enclosing the properly sized image file with image tags that you can cut and paste directly into your post, so you don't have to create a second set when uploading, you can specify the re-sizing parameters in the photo sharing software and it handles all resizing for you across your entire photo site. And since 1024`still seems to be a fairly standard size used by many, esp those whose eyesight may not be what it once was, I was simply asking that we consider ease of viewing, esp when there is text included.

    So given all those I don't see this as an unreasonable request. If it causes some not to post here, well, any set of rules or requests will turn away some or at least cause them some hesitation to post here, but I would hope that a sense of common respect and the spirit of working together to provide the best experience for all users would prevail.

    Again it is merely a request on my part, not a hard and fast rule, take it as you will, I certainly do not intend in taking any action if your images are larger but i would hope most would take this request in the spirit it was brought forward.

    RM

  15. #15
    I Used to Be Someone sheridesabeemer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Live Free & Ride, NH
    Posts
    3,859
    Well then, I learned new things. I didn't take into account the rest of the screen issues. I can post a smaller copy. I'll save the 1024 shots for the camera forum...
    Gail Hatch
    SheRidesABeemer's Blog
    05 R12GS
    87 K75CT

Posting Permissions

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