Post images > web size > quality.

[stamper]

Has the method of posting images here changed? I see the restrictions on file sizes and the number of images allowed - which some members ignore - but what seemed a straight forward process now has pit falls. Some images appear in a separate window which is desirable and some remain embedded and others appear too large and the need to scroll to view. I tried twice to post an image that was 1200 pixels long and well within the file size which wouldn't load. Reduced the pixel length to 800 which loaded. Hopefully someone with a better knowledge of these matters could conjure up an article for the best posting methods? If there is one I would appreciate a link. TIA

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I also prefer 1000 as a width.
As an experiment, I am posting here three versions of the same jpeg, one each at 800, 1000, and 1200 px width.

The thumbnails are all the same size, and the 800 and 1000 pixel versions fit nicely on my screen when clicked, but the 1200 pixel version does not fit on my screen so I must either scroll to see the whole image or else zoom my browser smaller so I can see it all, but then I can't read any text.

Thus, I would much prefer a limit of 1000 pixels, with any larger image displayed on its own separate page.

-Eric

P.S. 1500 pixel version added for Slobodan.

[stamper]

The 1000 pixel size looks like a good solution. I normally resize for 1200 for posting to Flickr therefore a change of methodology is needed. Eric I think that your images look a little softer the smaller they are posted. Not you fault but a problem with the 800 pixel size is that one of the resident "nitpickers" may nitpick it as a fault?

[Jeremy Roussak]

I think that since the last upgrade, 1200 has become the trigger point for an image to open in a new window. That is, any image ≤1200  on its longer side opens inline.

Jeremy

[GrahamBy]

The 1200px version opens in the browser on my work machine, at least (which is rather low tech; Windows XP, 24" monitor, basically unchanged since it was built in 2008).

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Eric, thanks for the three examples. It confirms, to me at least, that 800 is the only one that doesn't require scrolling when viewed on an iPad (which more and more people use the days).

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Eric, thanks for the three examples. It confirms, to me at least, that 800 is the only one that doesn't require scrolling when viewed on an iPad (which more and more people use the days).

And I refuse to get any iThingy until they come up with one that has a thirty inch screen that I can fit in my shirt pocket. 

My 21-inch second monitor is what I consider the smallest size for decent viewing of photographs. the 1000-pixel size works fine for me, and 1200 requires scrolling.

[Telecaster]

Just to note, the 1200 version also requires scrolling on my iPad (2048x1536 res) using Safari.

-Dave-

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Eric, can you amend your post to include a 1500 px shot, so that we can see if larger than 1200px opens in a separate window?

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Eric, can you amend your post to include a 1500 px shot, so that we can see if larger than 1200px opens in a separate window?

Done. And it does open in a separate window for me.

I'll include it here for those too lazy to scroll back a few posts.   

[Jeremy Roussak]

Eric, can you amend your post to include a 1500 px shot, so that we can see if larger than 1200px opens in a separate window?

Longer side 1210px does it.

Jeremy

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Longer side 1210px does it.

Jeremy

Did you try both 1209 and 1210 to be sure?   

Eric

[stamper]

Has anyone had trouble using Firefox to post an image? I tried yesterday and it wouldn't load but managed it with Internet Explorer and it up loaded

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I posted, in a new thread, a kind request to post images either up to 800px or larger than 1200px, in order to be able to see them without scrolling.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

Has anyone had trouble using Firefox to post an image? I tried yesterday and it wouldn't load but managed it with Internet Explorer and it up loaded

Much as I dislike anything that comes from Micro$oft, I have found that IE 11 works better for me than do any of the other browsers I have on my PC (for emergencies). Those are: Firefox, Chrome, and Opera. I removed Safari quite some time ago when it seemed to have more security issues than other PC browsers.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Eric, thanks for the three examples. It confirms, to me at least, that 800 is the only one that doesn't require scrolling when viewed on an iPad (which more and more people use the days).

That was then (a month ago). Looks like the things got worse in the meantime: even 800 px needs scrolling on an iPad (Air 2).