MFlenses - A new life in a digital age
MFLenses 2026

Manual Focus Lenses Forum

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.

Explore the world of vintage lenses through repair notes, real test shots, and detailed archive threads packed with images.
DiskFreeVault safely moves Mac apps and data to external storage.
Spotlight

Featured partner placement for the forum front page.

Protest about Picture Widths
Post new topic Reply to topic
View previous topic :: View next topic  


Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:48 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 5:48 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Peter wrote:
800 is better

for me the lower limit is 500


Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:12 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:12 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Actually, I think that poilu's post shows that a 500px picture can easily give an impression of what the image is about.
If you link to a larger version, you can see details.

I like this idea.


Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:16 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 6:16 pm
Post subject:
Reply
poilu wrote:
Peter wrote:
800 is better

for me the lower limit is 500

Nice, Arctia caja (UK common name Garden Tiger Moth). 500 is far too narrow for me too! Smile


Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:43 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 7:43 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Maybe folks could just mention picture width in their subject line if they are posting large. Then the people with small monitors could just ignore it and move on.

Pbase.com is where I post my pics. I size almost everything to 1200 pixel width but pbase.com automatically makes a small medium and large copy of the original. Very easy to post large or medium with imbeded link to the original. I almost never post the original. I do use higher resolution put my monitor is UXGA and I want it too look good on MY screen too. I didn't spend extra money on a good monitor so I could look at low resolution pictures.

Too may people spend too much money on their camera gear then go home and look at pictures on a poor monitor. I see it every day.
$10,000 in camera gear and an old $80 CRT monitor..


Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Mon Aug 25, 2008 8:32 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Hang on Arlon, I think you're mixing up the screen resolution with the picture resolution. The picture resolution depends upon the camera/lens or the scanner. You don't get a low resolution picture by looking at it on a cheap monitor.

Increasing the size of the monitor doesn't automatically mean you can see more of a big picture. If the resolution of the screen is at the same setting as the small monitor the screen pixels just become larger and you see exactly the same content, only magnified. If you want to see more content you have to increase the screen resolution as well. If we all had a constant ratio between our monitor size and the screen resolution then everybody would see exactly the same content (at different magnifications).

By the way, my 19" flat panel monitor wasn't cheap quality. I can't fit a larger screen on my desk unless I remove my lens shelf! Smile


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:26 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:26 am
Post subject:
Reply
Arlon wrote:
Maybe folks could just mention picture width in their subject line if they are posting large.

Alternatively, maybe folks could just stick to the guidelines.

Quote:

Too may people spend too much money on their camera gear then go home and look at pictures on a poor monitor. I see it every day.
$10,000 in camera gear and an old $80 CRT monitor..

My 'old' CRT monitor cost me several hundred pounds a few years ago and it will still blow most current monitors into the weeds. I won't be replacing it anytime soon as long as it stays within parameters.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 12:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
If I know well almost all CRT monitors are better for graphical jobs than LCD.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:47 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 4:47 am
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:
If I know well almost all CRT monitors are better for graphical jobs than LCD.


That was true Smile But today a LCD monitor are superior in every way. Just don´t buy the fast TN panels, they are made to gamers and "normal" people.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:00 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:00 am
Post subject:
Reply
Attila. I added this bbcode to my forum.

code:

[imgwide]{URL}[/imgwide]

html:
<div align="center"><a href="{URL}"><img src="{URL}" border="0" width="800" alt="Click on the image to view it in full size" /></a><br /><b>Click on the image to view it in full size</b></div><br />

Then just make people use the [imgwide] tags instead of [img] :p


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:32 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:32 am
Post subject:
Reply
zewrak wrote:
Attila. I added this bbcode to my forum.

code:

[imgwide]{URL}[/imgwide]

html:
<div><a><img></a><br>Click on the image to view it in full size</div><br>

Then just make people use the [imgwide] tags instead of [img] :p


That code makes all images be 800 wide (so narrower ones are made wider) and uses the crappy algorithm in curtrent HTML browsers. Bad idea.

Through all this heated discussion, the focus has been on images and the assertion that they 'force people to scroll'. But that is asking the wrong question. The original complaint was about text wrapping. If there is to be editing of the bbcode snippets, then the place to start is establishing a max width for the text which in fact already gets wider with images of 900 or indeed 800px. Having the text wrap at a comfortable width, and having wider images jut out fro the text to the right, would deal with the issue of the original complaint at source.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:41 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 9:41 am
Post subject:
Reply
I guess we already over talked this subject, if anybody want to publish wider images a linked images will just fine.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 11:28 am
Post subject:
Reply
Is there any way of getting that code which you can cut and paste off Flickr which automatically links to the picture page when you click on it working here? For example, if I use this code in Flickr, I get the picture and a link to the picture.

<a><img></a>

Also, are pictures taller than 900 ok?


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 6:58 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Attila wrote:
I guess we already over talked this subject, if anybody want to publish wider images a linked images will just fine.


English is not my mother language I can't make fine details, if I did hurt anybody with this post please forgive me. I would say politely this is not a big problem and I think is solved already.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:14 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:14 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Puplet wrote:
Also, are pictures taller than 900 ok?

Hi Puplet, the height of pictures doesn't cause any problems for me and we've never set any voluntary limits. However, it's always preferable IMO to be able to let everyone see a whole picture without needing to scroll up and down. 900 is about the max I can fit on my screen, but don't feel bound by that.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 7:53 pm
Post subject:
Reply
peterqd wrote:
Puplet wrote:
Also, are pictures taller than 900 ok?

Hi Puplet, the height of pictures doesn't cause any problems for me and we've never set any voluntary limits.


I believe that a figure of 768 was mentioned.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 8:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
ChrisLilley wrote:
peterqd wrote:
Puplet wrote:
Also, are pictures taller than 900 ok?

Hi Puplet, the height of pictures doesn't cause any problems for me and we've never set any voluntary limits.


I believe that a figure of 768 was mentioned.

768 is the maximum height allowed by the Upload Image button, whatever the width. I tried an experiment - this picture was originally 768 wide x 1157 high but the Upload button has resized it to 510 x 768 high, which fits nicely on my screen.


But as I said, there is nothing against anyone posting a taller image by other means if they want to as long as it's within the max 900 width. There has never been a poll or agreement on the max height of images.


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:03 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:03 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Peter wrote:
there is nothing against anyone posting a taller image by other means if they want to as long as it's within the max 900 width

that's a great idea for panorama
we could post them rotated 90 degrees
just be careful for stiff neck


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:06 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Kind of loses its impact standing on its head Poilu


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:12 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:12 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing


Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Tue Aug 26, 2008 10:37 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Laughing

by the way it's amazing, this kindergarten looks entirely like the one that is near my apartment here - structures, trees, concrete walkway and all.


Post
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:27 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Aug 27, 2008 8:27 am
Post subject:
Reply
Laughing Laughing Laughing @ poilu


Post
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:26 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:26 am
Post subject:
Reply
Nikongear has a in its forum a function, which autmatically limits images to < 1000 pixels width and scales the height according to image ratio.

code looks like this and the witdth=... height=... are automatically inserted....end of all discussions, very simple.
[img width=1000 height=625]http://www.pbase.com/kds315/image/102174616/original.jpg[/img]

is that doable Attila, or should I ask Dallas the nikongear founder how he programmed that?? (I'm no softie btw.)


Post
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Thu Sep 04, 2008 11:30 am
Post subject:
Reply
kds315* wrote:
Nikongear has a in its forum a function, which autmatically limits images to < 1000 pixels width and scales the height according to image ratio.


It makes images look very bad.
Much better the oversized gallery.


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:27 pm
Post subject:
Reply
900 pix width ? Middle age come-back ?. A 15 years old 17" crt screen is able to display 1024.
Sorry , first I stop definitively posting any picture. I don't want spending any time to reduce pics to satisfy this "law" edicted by under an hallf-dozen of "vip" people . Flickr middle width is 1024 , that's was perfect. Flickr : millions of pics . This forum : a few hundred's. So I quit . So long. Next , please. (forum)


Post
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Post
Posted: Wed Sep 17, 2008 6:31 pm
Post subject:
Reply
Come on Helios
You don't need to reduce pics
We have a oversized gallery where you can post whatever you want
http://forum.mflenses.com/oversized-gallery-f21.html
I don't want to miss your nice portraits Wink
Post new topic Reply to topic
Goto pagePrevious 1 2 3 4 Next
Page 3 of 4