Posting images on the forums

Yep, it's alright, not a bad idea actually, but I just dont believe there's a problem with how a thread reads when the pictures are 800x600 - presumably there is some kind of difference between our settings or our personal preferences, though a website can't cater for every user's settings, so maybe a poll needs to be taken to find the opinion of the majority of users?
 
772 is actually not so bad to be honest, though this is my main lappy, on my other lappy which is 1024 it is not ideal. I am being devils advocate here as I mostly use this laptop to view the forum, but many people use smaller laptops and some even still use dial up. As a sailing forum a good number log in from aboard via a mobile telephone and pay silly amounts for data transfer.

I would have different outlook if this was a photographic interest group, but we have a totally different demographic. About 12 months ago there was a poll in the lounge and small screens were still quite comfortably in the majority, I have no reason to believe this has changed.

Maybe it is time for another poll on this subject.

In answer, if this was put to a vote, I would not whine at 772 if the majority considered that to be the ideal size, but I will if it starts going toward 800. I do however think it is time to put a block on oversize images, both dimensions and file size, I have a 4Mb connection so this is not a selfish view I hope you understand.

EDIT>>

at 1024 x 768
screen1024x768.jpg


at 1280 x 800
screen1280x800.jpg
 
Cool - Thanks for that.

Yes another forum I'm on resizes the photos down but uses a local cache store to do so which eats server disk space. I'm sure ybw couldn't justify the hardware costs to cache copies of resized photo's already hosted on other sites. The current forum software just renders the jpgs in place as they are, but it could perhaps be configured zoom size down to a max if the width exceeds the limit, BUT leave the rest alone avoiding distortion.

PS: Well done surviving Vista /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif /forums/images/graemlins/wink.gif I took it off my laptops, only run it on a twin 64-bit proc with 4gb ram on a desktop, eats bandwidth with chatter.
 
hmm... well its not exactly difficult to close and open your favourites column, its a split second, single mouse click, then 800 wide is fine on your 1024 laptop as well. It's a lot less hassle than having thumbnails or links which then have to open up another web site in order to view the picture.

Anyway, you've got nothing interesting in your favourites anyway, have you not heard of internet porn?
 
both are XP but running IE7.

The text looks pretty as I have ticked the hidden gem that is under the screen properties, that uses clear type on the screen fonts. I have only played with vista in shops and I am not at all impressed I am afraid to say.

For those who have not found it..

Display properties > Appearance > Effects > tick the..... 'use the following effects to smooth edges of screen fonts' ...... and select clear type.
 
I'd say 800x600 would be OK or 1024x768. It doesn't need to be any bigger. JPG is best and set the compression to 15% that will give you a good size that won't take too long to download/view in realtime.
T
 
Well I agreed with dan at 600. My own personal choice has been 722 for a long while, simply because the files from my camera dropped to that size in Photoshop when I reduced the resolution, and they fitted.
However 12mp files still come out too big and require further intervention.

1024 would be way too big. That's screen resolution for most surfers. It would leave no space for the bar down the left with ID info. So you'd get horizontal scrolling bars, which is the main objection most users have to big pics.
You can always make your 600 pixel wide pic a link to the full size image.

Click on Pic

 
Sorry to make just a quick post here, I've also commented on the same topic in the lounge but this has raised an interesting debate about ideal image size for the browsers we use.

However, we are restricted - for the time being - by the forum infrastructure and 600 pixels is ideal for this and, I believe, will show sufficient details.

As I also said in the other post, this is still open for debate but I'd appreciate everyone sticking with the 600 rule for now to see how we get on. I am told this roughly translates as 'large' photo size on photobucket...

Cheers,
Dan
 
See, now that's far too small for me, and from the screen print, can you see that there is quite a few inches left on the right hand side that would accomodate up to 800 pixels without altering text or creating a horizontal scroller:

c483af40.jpg


Edit: But fair enough, large it will be for the meantime, which is 640x480 pixels
 
[ QUOTE ]
have you not heard of internet porn?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh no, not my internet favourite skills, how will I survive this onslaught. /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif
 
800x600 and 1024x768 are the screen sizes. If you made a pic 1024 pixels wide you'd get scrolling bars. I'm sure Dan can tell us what percentage of users are viewing at which resolutions and 1024 is certainly the major part of viewers to the sites I have.

I'm sorry to do this but here is a pic at 1024 pixels wide

That will have bolloxed it for most forum users.


Lakewindy_1024.jpg
 
But you are viewing at 1280x1024.

Most surfers are not.
Reduce your resolution (It only takes 5 clicks) and join the discusion on a level playingfield.
 
Cor that's perfect for me, that is!

e94024cc.jpg


I've also got this open on two seperate 15" screens on a desktop and a laptop, and 800 pixels doesn't create a scroller, it just fills the screen more, which I like.
 
So those of us viewing at 3360 by 1050 (yes really!) are definitely out of pattern then! /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif /forums/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I think the suggestion above about making the 600px image a link to a big image is the right answer - that way everyone wins.

Cheers
Jimmy
 
1024 doesn't give me a problem - I normally view at 1280 on a standard 17" flat screen, although the lappy is 1440 wide..

I normally post photos at 800 x 600, because that is what my Photobucket account supports - anything bigger it automatically resizes to 800x600. I think the difference between 772 and 800 is insignificant, however I notice Julian clearly uses a Favourites menu on the left of his browser, which I never do, so my browser area is wider than his.
 
Ah - but I can switch the forum between 3 screens ... Wide in the middle, (1440x900), large on the right (1152x864) and standard on the left (1024x768) .... it allows me to view quite number of programs at the same time - very handy ... /forums/images/graemlins/smile.gif
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page

Top