Picture Posting Dilemma – Help required. (Could become a hot topic)

[neil_r]

I have posted several 100 pictures on this forum, some have received excellent feedback some have received most welcome constructive feedback some have been ignored and some have even won competitions :D .

I have a standard workflow that prepares images for my website and my site displays images at either 600px or 1012px (1000px without border) on the longest side. I have just had pointed out to me by a mod that my pictures are too big and that they need to be “Fixed” I have no problem with that if the rule is 800px max then that is the rule.

What I would like to do is challenge that rule. With the penetration of Broadband and the proliferation of Hi Res / Wide Screen monitors why do we have an 800px widest side limit? I am not storing the pictures on the board, any bandwidth being used to view them is mine and I do not post a string of 10 or more pictures for consideration (5 max usually)

600px is too small to do the pictures justice on any monitor set above 1024 x 768 and I do not want to add an additional size picture to my site that will only be used here.

I would really welcome some healthy debate on this and hopefully look to change the the existing limit to allow up to 1024 on the longest side. That will surly be a bonus for the panno guys.

[PAFC2004]

I agree totally.
As long as there is warning within the thread title.

[Davinor]

Unfortunatly some areas just don't have broadband capability, I have, but a couple of friends who only live 20 miles away don't - and they have been told it could easily be another 3 years before upgraded systems allow it. They are stuck with dial-up.

David

[PAFC2004]

Why should those with broadband suffer though?

[Nick C.]

I have broadband and am quite happy with the 800px limit so it wouldn't really bother me either way. But I don't have my own site either so I don't share Neil's predicament.

Warnings are good on large posts but I would say that a large number of people here have broadband. So I would think that if you allow an increase to 1024px then the majority of posts would go to that size, leading to warnings all over the forum (making them more redundant). Therefore people with 56k would just have to accept slower load times in using the forum - I don't think they'd get much of a choice. They would be the ones that would suffer more in my opinion.

But hey, I'd love to see bigger versions of some of the great work I've seen on here.

[tommykjensen]

How about this.

Imbed the small here and link to the big. Like this example with a small thumbnail (You would just use Your 600 pixel version)


http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/PrivateCarnival1_thm.jpg (http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=PrivateCarnival1.jpg)

http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/public/PrivateCarnival1_thm.jpg (http://photo.klein-jensen.dk/photohtml.php?n=PrivateCarnival1.jpg)



As a sidenote: I personally have no problem with photos up to 1024 as I have 1 21" monitor with resolution 1600x1200 (I think) and 1920x1200 on my laptop.

[IanD]

As previously mentioned, not everyone has access to or the ability to have a hi-speed connection or a 20" + display. If you have ever travelled out of town and been without hi-speed or your large screen, you know how painful it is to wait for a series of images to open. The last figures that I could find said that only 51% of US users had broadband connections. That still leaves an extremely large number of folks just crawling along when trying to DL a large image. I'm sure that the percentage is about the same in other countries.
I am also certain that when the percentages grow to over 75% that Pekka will rethink the 800 size limit. Until then, 800 stands and we ask that members respect that. On a side note, resizing a couple of images to 800 max one side is no great deal. It only takes a couple of clicks to do and a lot of folks would appreciate it.

[neil_r]

Tommy, that could be the answer, I will now practice......

(with your fingers crossed) Click on the image for larger vesion...

http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/small/noida_june_06_N6H9299.jpg (http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/large/noida_june_06_N6H9299.jpg)

[/URL]
http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/thumb/noida_june_06_N6H9299.jpg (http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/large/noida_june_06_N6H9299.jpg)


http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/microthumb/noida_june_06_N6H9299.jpg (http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/large/noida_june_06_N6H9299.jpg)

[URL="http://www.neil-rice.com/gallery/photo/large/noida_june_06_N6H9299.jpg"]

This will also demonstrate the difference between 600 and 1000px as well.....

[tommykjensen]

Yup that works.

[Moppie]

Tommy, that could be the answer, I will now practice......



That works really, well.
I have a 15inch monitor at work thats limited to 1024x768, so I can view your small photo easily with out having to scroll.
However, at home I have as my main monitor a 19incher running 1600x1200, so I can view the high res one here, and get all the benifits it entails.
However, at over 3/4 of a meg in size, it took a few seconds to download, even with a broadband connection.
I would have been waiting 10 mintues on dail up.

And Dail up is still the most common internet connection, your living outside of western civilisation, in a country experianceing a mixture of the 1st and 3rd world, how many of your neighbors and work mates have a high speed connection?

[condyk]

Well I've been in internet cafe's world over and know how painful it is on dialup connects so personally I am happy to post mine at 600px from my server and then always ensure they are below around 180kb. My laptop is small for on the road use so 600px does fine for me there too. At home then I don't care. But I want more 'developing' country people to enjoy POTN so 800px and a reasonable file size is fine by me. I'm also mainly interested in composition so don't miond if my shots don't look as sharp and bright as they do on my own screen as an original TIFF. I get what you are saying, but I like Tommy's suggestion better than opening the doors to large images and files sizes.

[adam*]

I have broadband so large images are not a problem, but my the monitor on my home computer is 15" and mine is 17", they are both set on 1024x768 and so it isn't possible to view images which do not fit inside IE/Firefox.