New Image Size Limit?

Hey, gang, a new image size limit has been posted here:

https://photography-on-the.net …/showthread.php​?t=1377055

So, here's an image with the new 1280 pixel size, but still @ within 150KB:

Well, the cat doesn't seem to be very impressed with the new/larger image size limit.

Nice photo/grumpy cat.

WhidbeyHiker wrote in post #16900474
Well, the cat doesn't seem to be very impressed with the new/larger image size limit.

Nice photo/grumpy cat.

Heh! I just grabbed that pic 'cause it was "up", an '08 shot of a beloved family cat who passed away in '09...

tonylong wrote in post #16900486
Heh! I just grabbed that pic 'cause it was "up", an '08 shot of a beloved family cat who passed away in '09...

Sorry to hear that, lost our family cat in 2011, still not ready to bring in a new kitten (she was 14 years old).

150kb is still woefully small for any kind of real quality. Embedding is still the way to go, IMHO.

cdifoto wrote in post #16900510
150kb is still woefully small for any kind of real quality. Embedding is still the way to go, IMHO.

I've typically embedded, with shots that I've uploaded to my Web host, I've uploaded them using the old POTN resolution limits, and it's simple then to embed.

But for some quick posts I may not do that, and so the 150KB limit stands, but I'm not particularly unhappy with it for that type of shot!

Now, with the new size limit, I may need to re-do some of my Web posts. Ones I put up on FaceBook will still be too large (I post with dimensions of up to 1600-1200) so I'll still need another place hosting pics for POTN!

I lazily do almost everything in 1024. It's easier.

And, as far as the 150 KB limit, well, not that I have super-high expectations from that type of compression, but hey, the pic of the cat came out fine at that compression. What may appear to be some "banding" in the lower-right background is actually some kind of "stuff" (it was shot at f/1.2 so any "stuff" back there would be very OOF)!

Naysayer here. I don't welcome all the extra scrolling I'll have to do if many posters display their images in the new larger size. 1024 is already too wide to view at once without shrinking the whole image. However, a feature of AMASS! will accommodate large photos on small screens.

OhLook wrote in post #16900636
Naysayer here. I don't welcome all the extra scrolling I'll have to do if many posters display their images in the new larger size. 1024 is already too wide to view at once without shrinking the whole image. However, a feature of AMASS! will accommodate large photos on small screens.

Yeah, that's the problem with viewing with small/low res viewers, like you said, even 1024 pixels can be a bit much!

My monitor is something like 1900 pixels wide, so far so good, but it's only about 1050 pixels in height, so I'll probably put a limit to the height of pics I post, Oh Well...

But like you say, the new forum software should work with the mobile devices!

tonylong wrote in post #16900691
My monitor is something like 1900 pixels wide, so far so good, but it's only about 1050 pixels in height, so I'll probably put a limit to the height of pics I post, Oh Well...

1920 x 1080 is a common resolution for wide-screen PC desktop displays these days. The 1024 limit was and still is a good value to suggest to anyone.

1280? Dammit, now I have to change my LR presets. I'll give you odds that after I've done that it will go up to 1500 pixels.

It is annoying if pics more than 1024 in hight as most monitors will truncate the image.

Perhaps the limit should remain 1024 for height.

Seems odd to change when the forum software is about to change - or perhaps this is deliberately testing the water before new rules come in.

I have seen forums where big images are automatically limited in size (you can click to enlarge) This seems quite sensible. Images could be quite small by default - only enlarge where interested. If all images were on flickr you could potentially choose your preferred size!?