limits for image posting: 1024 pixels, 300 KB

This area is for the discussion of what's new, what's on your mind, and general photographic topics. A place to meet, make comments on this site, and get the latest community news.

Moderators: ChrisR, Chris S., Pau, rjlittlefield

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20860
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

limits for image posting: 1024 pixels, 300 KB

Post by rjlittlefield »

Effectively immediately, images can now be posted as large as 1024 pixels in the longest dimension, and 300 KB in file size.

This is by popular request, combined with a recent poll showing that only 12% of responding members are using monitors narrower than 1280 pixels.

Please note that people with narrow monitors (<1280 pixels) will have to do a lot of horizontal scrolling to handle topics that contain images wider than the old limit of 800 pixels. Choose your image size accordingly.

We have also added .png to the list of image types that can be uploaded.

--Rik
Last edited by rjlittlefield on Mon Jun 15, 2020 1:03 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Slinkytreekreeper
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:52 pm

Post by Slinkytreekreeper »

Is it possible to make this a preference for each user? I do have a 1920x1080 monitor but I don't use it to browse the net/forums. This would mean compression and moire but would go away if you clicked on it to see the full image. Or is clicking the image to see the full resolution version less preferable than having to scroll if using a small monitor?

I might be missing something but scrolling left and right for every line of text in threads where there are images larger than the screen is pretty frustrating if someone writes a paragraph.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20860
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Not sure I understand the question, but I can't think of any per-user preference that would make sense here, given that the forum software does not resize an image after it has been posted.

On the other hand, modern browsers do provide a "zoom" feature that works well to fix the horrors of slight over-sizing. If posters hold to the 1024-pixels-wide limit, then the forum displays nicely on a 1280x1024 monitor. On a 1024x768 monitor, at default size, it requires a lot of horizontal scrolling for paragraph text. But click on View > Zoom Out a couple of times, or do the equivalent thing with ctrl-mousewheel, and the images and text get resized by the browser so that they fit nicely again.

Try zooming, in your browser, and see if that solves the problem.

--Rik

Slinkytreekreeper
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:52 pm

Post by Slinkytreekreeper »

Sorry, perhaps that wasn't too clear.

I was wondering if the maximum size an image is displayed could be reduced until it was clicked on. I don't understand the back end stuff so no idea if this could be per user or would have to be all users.

I have image zoom (right click to zoom images) installed and what you suggest works essentially, I was just looking for a more elegant solution as that shrinks the text too. I have a couple of small 15" TFT monitors so I can just stretch the window to avoid the scrolling left and right.

It works, i'll stop whining now :oops:

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20860
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

Slinkytreekreeper wrote:I was wondering if the maximum size an image is displayed could be reduced until it was clicked on.
Ah, I see now what you were thinking. Sorry, but the forum software we use has no ability to resize an image. In theory it could be added, but in practice it's not feasible.

--Rik

DQE
Posts: 1653
Joined: Tue Jul 08, 2008 1:33 pm
Location: near Portland, Maine, USA

Post by DQE »

A couple of add-ins for Firefox that I use may be helpful to others. They offer several convenient options for managing the image size vs screen pixels issue that is fairly common across the internet. One of them (not quite sure which) allows one to set a default zoom level that is something other than 100%, and I personally find that 170% works well for my 1920x1200 monitor. It also remembers what zoom level I use for each web page, so when I go back to a specific forum with a certain typical picture size, it starts out at a good zoom level for my monitor.

These Firefox add-ons are: "Default Full Zoom Level" and "Image Zoom". Unfortunately, I am now not sure which is the key or if they are both needed for best functionality. I *think* that both turned out to be necessary for my setup.

Here's the link to Image Zoom:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... mage-zoom/

and the link to Default Full Zoom Level:

https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefo ... oom-level/

I hope this is helpful.
-Phil

"Diffraction never sleeps"

Slinkytreekreeper
Posts: 49
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2011 7:52 pm

Post by Slinkytreekreeper »

Cheers DQE,

Image zoom is excellent, love it. I had a bit of a tinker and the best result for me is just to stretch the window, now when I double click the firefox titlebar it switches between full single screen and nice and wide for here.

A double click is about as elegant as I could have wished for but your solution would not require more real estate, i'm sure it will be very useful when I visit here from work in lunch breaks.

Thanks for the links

siliconGary
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by siliconGary »

This might be a stupid question, but what is the best way to compress an image to get under the 300KB size restriction?

I want to post some images of ic die photos which are stitched images (~10-50 images) the original TIF is 8-30MB, the post processed JPEG is 1.5-6M. (I am on a Mac) Using Preview I can export the JPEG to JPEG with reduce quality, but sliding the compression fully to the left I am still left with 600kB file size. Taking the original TIF's and choosing maximum compression RawTherapee still results in 1+MB files.

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20860
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

siliconGary wrote:This might be a stupid question, but what is the best way to compress an image to get under the 300KB size restriction?
It sounds to me like you're trying to compress the images at their full pixel resolution. Resize them to be 1024 pixels or less, both axes, and then they should compress with no problem.

--Rik

siliconGary
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by siliconGary »

Thats Rik, I thought it was something simple. I found the "Adjust size" option under tools in Preview (For any other Mac users wanting to know how to do this)

siliconGary
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by siliconGary »

Sorry to reply to my own posting, but re-sized image below 350KB and I am now getting an error message "Filesize exceeds limit." (Which is interesting as when they were much larger I got no error message). My file size is 344kB as per this screenshot (168KB)

Image

rjlittlefield
Site Admin
Posts: 20860
Joined: Tue Aug 01, 2006 8:34 am
Location: Richland, Washington State, USA
Contact:

Post by rjlittlefield »

The behavior can be confusing.

If the uploaded image is larger than 1024x1024, then the forum software silently shrinks the image, producing a result that people don't like because it's not as sharp as what they uploaded.

If the uploaded image is 1024 pixels or smaller, then the software does not shrink the image but it does enforce the limit of 300 KB. That's what produced the error message.

In the pleasant case that the uploaded image is 1024 pixels or smaller, AND the file size is 300 KB or smaller, then the software accepts the image for storage and subsequently serves back exactly what was uploaded.

I have once again revised the Image Hosting Steps to try making the behavior more clear.

--Rik

siliconGary
Posts: 73
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2016 2:40 pm
Location: Canada
Contact:

Post by siliconGary »

Thanks for the explanation. No wording would help with the fact I did not read it carefully enough - I thought the limit said 350kB not 300kB ':oops:'

Post Reply Previous topicNext topic