A Request on Sizing Your Photo's

[rocketman]

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.

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

[WildBlue]

For me, at home my monitor is a 20" Wide Screen @ 1680*1050 resolution.

At work it's a dual 19" setup @ 1280*1024 each (effectively 2560*1024) so I rarely run into the issue of screen scrolling.

I understand the requests intent, and it was not my intent to start a heavy discussion either. Rather to voice my opinion on the topic once I saw that I was not alone in that opinion.

[rocketman]

For me, at home my monitor is a 20" Wide Screen @ 1680*1050 resolution.

At work it's a dual 19" setup @ 1280*1024 each (effectively 2560*1024) so I rarely run into the issue of screen scrolling.

I understand the requests intent, and it was not my intent to start a heavy discussion either. Rather to voice my opinion on the topic once I saw that I was not alone in that opinion.

Understood and please always feel free to express your concerns or provide input. The more I hear from the members the better I am able to judge what the consensus is. I can understand how my previous comment may have been taken.

RM

[marchyman]

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.

Most of my snapshots (very few rate the title photos ) and the shots from some fellow riders of the local groups I ride with are hosted on my private site. It is not a forum site, just a place for the various groups to share trip reports and photos. Since it is not a forum the photos are not inline. Thumbnails are used. When someone wants to see the entire image they click on the thumbnail to cause the image to overlay the entire window, hiding the text below. This method lets a 900 x 600 (several riders use SLRs with a 3:2 aspect ratio) fit in the browser window. The P&S users have their photos sized at 800 x 600. Images with a vertical orientation are sized at 500 x 750.

The posted photos include full EXIF info (when available). Mac users can drag an image to something like "EXIF Viewer" to see the data. Firefox users can grab the FxIF plug-in to show EXIF info on an image. Apparently there is also ViewEXIF which works on Internet Explorer. It annoys me no end that smugmug apparently strips the exif so I can't use these tools with images hosted on smugmug.

It is not always true that an image that looks good at 800 will look good at 600 (or smaller). There are images that look great full screen on my 19200 x 1200 moniter yet are nothing when shrunk to web size. It is not uncommon for me to toss images after exporting for web for just that reason. Perhaps if I had a better eye, i.e was a better photographer, that wouldn't be true.

Enough . I just would not like to see an "800 max width" rule as that would mean max height of about 532 for 3:2 which is a bit to small for my eyes.

// marc

[rocketman]

Most of my snapshots (very few rate the title photos ) and the shots from some fellow riders of the local groups I ride with are hosted on my private site. It is not a forum site, just a place for the various groups to share trip reports and photos. Since it is not a forum the photos are not inline. Thumbnails are used. When someone wants to see the entire image they click on the thumbnail to cause the image to overlay the entire window, hiding the text below. This method lets a 900 x 600 (several riders use SLRs with a 3:2 aspect ratio) fit in the browser window. The P&S users have their photos sized at 800 x 600. Images with a vertical orientation are sized at 500 x 750.

The posted photos include full EXIF info (when available). Mac users can drag an image to something like "EXIF Viewer" to see the data. Firefox users can grab the FxIF plug-in to show EXIF info on an image. Apparently there is also ViewEXIF which works on Internet Explorer. It annoys me no end that smugmug apparently strips the exif so I can't use these tools with images hosted on smugmug.

It is not always true that an image that looks good at 800 will look good at 600 (or smaller). There are images that look great full screen on my 19200 x 1200 moniter yet are nothing when shrunk to web size. It is not uncommon for me to toss images after exporting for web for just that reason. Perhaps if I had a better eye, i.e was a better photographer, that wouldn't be true.

Enough . I just would not like to see an "800 max width" rule as that would mean max height of about 532 for 3:2 which is a bit to small for my eyes.

// marc

Thanks I am aware now that for some it may not be easy to re size and I don't have a problem with that and certainly 900 width should work fine. The sidebar of the browser can be closed easy enough to allow enough room. I also like to print many of my photos at larger sizes, esp since I now have a decent home photo printer and also have some smaller sensor cameras with a different aspect ratio think many have greater impact at larger sizes such as landscapes. (In fact I'm working up some my shots from the trip to Bermuda that include some great landscapes and panoramas I took and will post a report soon as well some images and links to my pano viewer on my home page)

So let me restate my original thought which is a request to limit the sizes of your shot as best as you can and consider those who use laptops and such with 1024 width screen settings. And if you want to show off your work at full size you can always include a link to the full size images.

Thanks again for the input, I really do listen and appreciate it.

RM

[jantarek]

One more thing about www.smugmug.com that I like is that they are not changing any Values of photo data, like photobucket or flickr does, so what ever you upload there it will stay with all digital values, plus for 50 bucks a year you get store as many pictures as you want, i have over 5000 all in full 2mb to 7mb per picuture
here is my site
http://jantarek.smugmug.com/

[cactuspat]

http://cactuspat.smugmug.com/gallery...w=forum&Page=1

[RINTY]

Rocketman:

Thanks for bringing this up. I don't understand all the technical stuff, but those big pictures are inconvenient. I just scroll through them.

I just got a 22" Acer, but I still have to go side to side on the big ones.

As far as I'm concerned, I would be happy to see the mods set the V Bulletin so that it wouldn't take pix larger than 800 x 600, but that would probably bring the roof down.