Protest about Picture Widths

[peterqd]

I'd also like to ask why you feel it is necessary to post >900w pictures.

It is so easy to post a 900w picture with an embedded link to a
larger one if that's what you want to do. Or if there is some
technical detail you want to see at large resolution,
such as CA, then you can do it just as easily with a crop.

Contrary to what was said by ChrisLilley, I certainly do click on
the links to larger pictures when I am interested in seeing them.
I could equally point out that posting a picture which is too large
is forcing everyone to look at something they might not be
interested in. And if it ruins the wrapping of the entire thread,
that is plain selfishness.

[lahnet]

peterqd - Good eksampel. Now we know that 1280 x 1024 resolution have problems. I use 1680 x 1050 (20") and the picture and the texts are just fine.

I find the trouble to upload 2 times (flickr and imageshack) are a bigger problem, than a few people have to scroll a little.

Still a impotent discussion, I hope everyone will keep it in a friendly tone. As a non native English speaker it is sometime difficult for me to "hit" the right tone.

[poilu]

[Farside]

After being annoyed by it for long enough I decided the only way was to re-size images in FireFox and the Image Zoom plug-in does that nicely. It's not automatic, but that's bearable so long as there's only one or two oversized images on the page.

[patrickh]

Actually peter your image and text come up perfectly on my monitor - I have Firefox running on the iMac 24 and I typically use "cooliris" for viewing posts. How many of us actually have a problem when the pic is more than 900?


patrickh

[patrickh]

PS

I finished reading your post and I for one will happily stick with 900 rather than lose you or anyone!!


patrickh

[ChrisLilley]

[Attila]

I agree , this is not happen frequently. If happen moderator able to replace IMG tag to URL , linked image doesn't hurt anyone.

[ChrisLilley]

[ChrisLilley]

[peterqd]

[Attila]

In my opinion best way to include an image less than 900px and make a note if reader click on it it will comes in higher resolution. I guess this is a good compromise.

[Orio]

I am against automatic resizing. As Chris pointed out, it makes images look very poor.

I think that there is no decision about the picture size that will make everyone happy. There will always be someone happy and someone disappointed, with any size limit.

I agree that a 900 pixels width image plus a link to a larger image can be an acceptable compromise for most.

However, there is some people with no facility to host their own images outside MFLenses. It would be fair to give them also the possibility to show larger images as an option.
For them, the "large size gallery" suggested by Andy could be a solution. But I am afraid that it would be difficult, if not impossible, for Attila to set up the forum so that the autoresize on upload is active on all forums but inactive on the large size gallery.

[Attila]

If anybody need to host large size images a couple of possibility available for free.

Image hosting servers like imageshack etc.

MFL Club membership (Ask me to get it)

etc.

[naplam]

The image-resize script can be modified to remove the image/link or whatever. Anyway, if you click in the resized image it's a link to the full image. Also, it could be modified so that users choose their preference (resize or not), stored in a cookie in the client or maybe in the phpbb profile. The resize algorithm is that of your web browser (width=xxx is added to the <img> tag), which is often a crappy one.

[peterqd]

[ChrisLilley]

[LucisPictor]

Ooops. I'm late here. Sorry.

- I have read Peter's posts, but I have not thought about doing something despite being a mod. I do not think that I should have deleted posts with too wide pictures. You know, I am a mod, not a censor.

- Personally, I think that 900px are great. I post pictures only 800px wide and think this is enough to show the picture as a whole. If I want to show the performance of a lens, I post a crop or link to a full size image.

- I completely understand Peter! Wider pictures cause horizontal scrolling which to me is a nuisance as well.

- And I also consider it to be disrespectful if one of us reminds the others of a forum rule and nobody cares.

Peter, congratulations. You will be a very committed mod. Good choice, Attila!

[patrickh]

I apologize for the density of my skull in advance, but why is it that my screen shows the whole pic posted by Peter without scroll bar and others don't? I thought browsers automatically sized to fit. Another point - I usually link to smugmug where I have my pics hosted, but when I link it does not offer me a choice on point sizes - just small, medium or large. How do I work out which size I can link to? Again - I hope I am not just being difficult.


patrickh

[Farside]

[Himself]

No problems here with the the wide images.
I like big
I have a 20" monitor with a 1600X1200 resolution.

[patrickh]

I too have no problems and I really like the large size (Richard's example picture was actually great, very sharp and clean on my monitor). I would just like to be sure that we can all get the best out of the display on the forum that we can - it is after all about pictures and they should look as good as we can get them. Frankly from what I can see most at 900 have severe limitations on the definition we can actually see.


patrickh

[peterqd]

Patrick, anyone who you can view the complete 1250 wide image I posted on their screen must have a resolution setting on their display at around 1600 wide or more - anything less results in cropping, not resizing. The actual size of the image you can see with your eyes depends on the resolution setting (ie how many pixels per inch on your display) and also on the size of the screen (the magnification of each pixel).

My TFT screen is 19" diagonal and I have it set at the maximum 1280 x 1024 resolution possible. This results in the smallest pixel size I can use because of my long-sightedness. I physically cannot reduce the pixel size any more on my display, but even if I could I would suffer eyestrain. A much bigger monitor would be necessary.

These resized full-screen captures show you how I see a 1250 wide image on my display. The first image shows the left side of the MFL frame when I have Windows maximised. Notice how the picture and text disappear off the right hand side.


I have to scroll across to the right to read each line of text and then scroll back to start reading the next line. (And remember, this affects the whole thread, not just one message). Here is a similar screen capture when I have scrolled to read the end of the line. Note that the left edge of the image has now disappeared.


I hope this explains why I am keen to keep the 900 limit. We discussed this and agreed it by a poll only around 18 months ago. The optimum resolution for viewing images this size is 1280 x 1024. If 900 wide images are too small on your screen this can be improved by reducing the resolution a little.

On the other forum, whatever size of image is posted, the right side of the frame remains visible on the screen. The image is resized automatically to fit. This is far more user-friendly in my view, however if the image quality is degraded it's debatable whether this is desirable or not. The answer is to stick to the optimum image size.

[patrickh]

Peter

I finally see the light and thank you. Obviously I shall go along with the group decision for 900 and you have my very explicit approval to resize anything I may inadvertently put up that is oversized.



patrickh

[peterqd]