Image size 800 pixel limit - any chance of increase?

[asabet]

For those of us are using Flickr, which automatically resizes to a 1024 pixel width, it would save some work to be able to post at 1024 wide. Most folks have displays large enough to handle this size. Would the site admins consider a change in this rule? Actually I have been embedding at this size (1024 wide) and no one has complained, but now that I see the rule I will embed at 500 pixels wide (the next smaller default Flickr size is 500 pixels wide, which is suboptimal IMO). No big deal but I thought I'd ask.

[In2Photos]

I see a lot of people from flicker using the thumbnail as a clickable link. That seems to work really well. I also don't see Pekka changing the 800 pixel size. Even though many here use large monitors many here still don't. Just like many still use dial up.

[AirBrontosaurus]

What we really should be doing is asking Flickr to allow us to set which sizes it auto-resizes for us. I would love to have it automatically size my uploaded image to, say, 500px, 800px, 1200px and original so I could use that and then link it to the original size. If you ask me, 500px is way too small.

[cosworth]

This was hashed out a while back. It falls on deaf ears. I have my own site configured to 1024.

800x600 is so 1999.

[In2Photos]

This was hashed out a while back. It falls on deaf ears. I have my own site configured to 1024.

800x600 is so 1999.
Easy to say when you are viewing at 1920x1200 or whatever. I still have a monitor at work set to 1024x768. 17" CRT that most likely won't be replaced until it dies. But oh well. I guess if I have to scroll to look at your images I probably just wouldn't look at them if it becomes a pain.

[::John::]

Easy to say when you are viewing at 1920x1200 or whatever. I still have a monitor at work set to 1024x768. 17" CRT that most likely won't be replaced until it dies. But oh well. I guess if I have to scroll to look at your images I probably just wouldn't look at them if it becomes a pain.

Agreed. I am 'stuck' with a 1024 monitor. If I have to scroll to see a picture or read the text, I back arrow out of there and move on.

[sandpiper]

Easy to say when you are viewing at 1920x1200 or whatever. I still have a monitor at work set to 1024x768. 17" CRT that most likely won't be replaced until it dies. But oh well. I guess if I have to scroll to look at your images I probably just wouldn't look at them if it becomes a pain.

Yep. Same here, I just wouldn't bother and go and look at someone else's pics instead.

[Moppie]

This was hashed out a while back. It falls on deaf ears. I have my own site configured to 1024.

800x600 is so 1999.


And running your browser maximised is so 1998 :p


I might have two monitors running 1600x1200 at home, but I don't use all of it for viewing photos, unless Im editing my own.


:cool:



For those who use flickers auto resize, be aware that the image resizing is often done to a low standard, and no sharpening is applied afterwards.
Its possible your not displaying your images at thier best.

Your actualy better off adding an extra step into your work flow either with an action, or useing photoshops image processor, or a similar resizing program, that resizes, then sharpens the image.

[asabet]

Actually Flickr does sharpen after resize, and the results look reasonably good to my eyes (unlike PBase, which definitely leaves marked softness in the resized images). Of course by taking the care to resize a photo and sharpen to taste I can get better results than Flickr, but Flickr does well enough without my having to take the trouble.

As for the size limit, ah well, just thought I'd ask. 800 wide really takes the detail out of a photo.

[::John::]

...
As for the size limit, ah well, just thought I'd ask. 800 wide really takes the detail out of a photo.

You always have the option of posting a smaller picture that links to a larger version on your site.

Tommy put a good tutorial about it in the stickies (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=157706).

[cosworth]

Yep. Same here, I just wouldn't bother and go and look at someone else's pics instead.

You obviously didn't go to my site. The gallery pics are 800x600.

[davev]

I'm using a Mac now, with Safari as my browser, but if I remember right, isn't there a
way to make it so the large images resize to fit the window if you're using Internet Explorer.

If people use that, they don't have to scroll and the folks with a little better rez. don't have to look a postage stamps. :)

[AirBrontosaurus]

I'm using a Mac now, with Safari as my browser, but if I remember right, isn't there a
way to make it so the large images resize to fit the window if you're using Internet Explorer.

If people use that, they don't have to scroll and the folks with a little better rez. don't have to look a postage stamps. :)

Yes, but it still requires a download. So if you post a 2mb image, even though it will only look 800x600 in your browser, it will still have to download all 2 megs, which takes a long time on a slow connection.

It does solve the size problem quite nicely though.

[asabet]

Yes, but it still requires a download. So if you post a 2mb image, even though it will only look 800x600 in your browser, it will still have to download all 2 megs, which takes a long time on a slow connection.

It does solve the size problem quite nicely though.

I don't think anyone thinks 2MB/photo is reasonable. I would propose a 300K limit on file size regardless of image size.

[davev]

Yes, but it still requires a download. So if you post a 2mb image, even though it will only look 800x600 in your browser, it will still have to download all 2 megs, which takes a long time on a slow connection.

It does solve the size problem quite nicely though.


2 megs would be crazy.
I realize not every place in the world has cable or DSL internet, but on the other hand,
a lot of the folks that play around with pictures do.

This shot is 1200x800 at 183K. Most of the shots that I have at that size are under 300K

http://davev.smugmug.com/photos/130445262-O.jpg

[In2Photos]

2 megs would be crazy.
I realize not every place in the world has cable or DSL internet, but on the other hand,
a lot of the folks that play around with pictures do.

This shot is 1200x800 at 183K. Most of the shots that I have at that size are under 300K

http://davev.smugmug.com/photos/130445262-O.jpg
That could be a great shot...if I didn't have to scroll.:confused:

[whiskaz]

I don't mind the smaller res requirements, really. I used to post pics at 1024 on my gallery but realized that you had to click a button to see the full sized image meaning that the image most folks were stopping at was a resized version (by the software) and that sucks as it doesn't look as good as the original. At the same time if I told the software to use 1024 as the max res (and not require another link to see the full size), it would jack up the layout. So, I dropped to 800 and it works fine and looks fine, even on a high res monitor. For my blog I drop it to 650 to fit the layout. In some cases, it's saved a few of my would-be-grainy shots. They look great at that size and for the web - thus serving their primary purpose just fine.

That and at work, I surf in a very small window even though my monitor's res is set really high :)

As for flickr, don't they prefer you not embed the image on other sites and instead hotlink to it?

[Jon]

The problem with a KB/MB restriction is that it's extremely hard to enforce. If a picture's over 800 pixels, it's fairly obvious. If the picture comes up slow, it might be either a large file or connection difficulties. The only way to enforce that would be to require only attachments, and that would mean both more disk space (which Pekka pays for out of pocket) and the 2-attachment limit (with its attendant restrictions on both image and file sizes).