LL's New Policy on the 800 Pixel Limit

[BobDavid]

Dear LL,

I think the $12 a year subscription fee is a bargain. I have learned a lot from the LL community, and I sometimes revisit the LL several times throughout the day. My only complaint about the new guidelines is limiting jpgs to 800 pixels on the long side.

I respectfully ask LL to reconsider the 800 limit and increase the maximum to 1200.

Some photographers post pictures exceeding 800 pixels by a factor of 2X, 3X, or more. No question, IT administration is costly--maintaining servers, optimizing data flow, and managing security.

SO, I appeal to the powers that be, to reconsider upping the maximum pixel count to 1200. That is only a 50% increase. 400 pixels matter. Many photos require more than 800 to view and interpret--subjects, processing techniques, diagrams and charts, etc.

Sincerely,.

BobDavid (Robert D. Rosinsky)

[BernardLanguillier]

What scope will this apply to?

- Pictures included in articles... Or
- Pictures linked to in forum posts?

I believe that the latter has zero cost for LL.

Cheers,
Bernard

[pegelli]

I think it's already up to 1200 for some time (at least that's what I have noticed):



Seems to apply for linked shots as well as thumbnails

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Bob, I think the policy is neither new nor strict. It is more like a kind request. Many people were posting much larger files that Bruce, for instance.

Posting larger files, however, poses a problem of its own: they often can not fit in the window for image display, unless you expand the browser full-screen. Another issue with larger files is viewing them on iPad:  there is simply no way to see them without scrolling.