Posting Pictures

Matrix said:
If you upload the pictures from your computer/pad/phone, the pictures will be resized to no bigger than 800x800 automatically.
Click to expand...
Hello Matrix,

Suspect you are already aware of the following and maybe have plans for a change? That size limit was appropriate and common a decade ago when this forum may have begun however computer technology advances rapidly including monitor pixel dimensions. Given many smaller smartphone screen sizes in this era, especially along the narrow width, 800x800 fits better. However all smartphone OS's automatically downsize images that won't fit screens thus the real issue is with larger devices as desktops, laptops, tablets of which most are at least 1080p.

I noticed when I set my image sizes to 800x800 the board software significantly softens whatever image resolution for usual bandwidth reduction. Thus it is just not pixel dimensions that are taking a hit and my own opinion as a photographer the result is relatively poor compared to other boards. Because posting images is increasingly common and popular in Internet communities, it would benefit the board to increase somewhat both imaging parameters. Another way to reduce image bandwidth issues is by limiting numbers of images members can post on threads since there are always a few that not understanding computer BW issues may load many.

thank you,
David
 
David777 said:
I noticed when I set my image sizes to 800x800 the board software significantly softens whatever image resolution for usual bandwidth reduction. Thus it is just not pixel dimensions that are taking a hit and my own opinion as a photographer the result is relatively poor compared to other boards. Because posting images is increasingly common and popular in Internet communities, it would benefit the board to increase somewhat both imaging parameters. Another way to reduce image bandwidth issues is by limiting numbers of images members can post on threads since there are always a few that not understanding computer BW issues may load many.
Click to expand...
800x800 is enough for most cases, it's also convenient without having to scroll back and forth on pretty much all screens. When the image quality matters, please use some image hosting site as Holly suggested.

We use a very large file size limit to make sure everyone can upload images successfully without any hassles, you don't have to do anything before you upload any images, leave everything to the forum. This is the most important thing for a senior forum, IMO.
 
Here is a 1920x1440 pixel NASA image via the Attach files forum function after forum software down sizing and compression that interestingly shows 1262x954 pixels instead of 800x800 an increase of 157%. Ideally the displayed size would not look soft if 800x800 on my monitor. Excuse some experimentation following.

NASA1.jpg

The same 1920x1440 pixel high resolution image nicely sharp via the image icon link as a dpreview hyperlink. I could of course use hyperlinks and may do so thank you.

l9_himalaya_hyperwall_rgb_nolabels-banner.jpeg


Just created an account at postimages dot com and uploaded the same 800 pixel wide image then used the image icon link. So software per below expanded by 157% the hyperlink to 1260 pixels making it display soft.

NASA2.jpg


This time time downsized more to a 300 pixels width and uploaded via the image icon link. That displays below as a 475 pixel wide image so not expanding to the panel width but rather just expands it by 157% like it did with the above that makes it soft. Thus the ideal process is to use a hyperlink greater than 1270 pixels width that the forum software leaves alone. A hyperlink less than that expands an image making it display soft. So have figured out what to do thank you.

NASA3.jpg
 
Last edited:
If Chrome magnifies the picture, it would surely look bad. There should be a way to change the behavior, but I couldn't find how to do it at the moment.

My Chrome shows your picture in its original size (800x800), it looks perfect on my 1920x1080 monitor - clear enough and not too wide.
 
I'm using Windows 10 on a 4k Dell laptop. Matrix, if you use a screen capture app like Windows Snipping Tool you can capture just your displayed image. After saving that as a jpg to your Chrome device, properties will show its actual pixel displayed size that is likely 1260 pixels after a 157% expansion. Thought I had this figured out, but not so. For reasons I don't understand, the dpreview image is not compressed at the exact 1920x1440 size at all while if I load a same size sharp resolution image from the postimage dot com site, it displays compressed soft?

OK figured out the free postimage site is compressing the image haha maybe because they want visitors to use their fee PRO account. Will work on this tomorrow.
 
Last edited:
Web searching with "phpbb max-width" brings up endless links to bulletin board administrator questions about window and photo sizing. Sorry I brought this up as I should have known better as this is all about the recent decade smartphone era that uses a long list of screen sizes admins now have to cope with.

Found a discussion about free online image posting sites and they now all seem to be playing fee games with annoying carrots. postimages dot org is a popular bulletin board plug-in source for doing so.

I have modest rusty coding skills with html css java scripts and poking about in some of the threads can see this is all a can of worms best left alone. Much depend on the base style templates selected and then whatever plug-in template and extensions were added. Your one time default max-width="800px" numbers in the css file may have been changed to value "100%" that then may resize to 1280px that is another window size parameter. I'm going to add a subsequent comment post in this thread I'll play around with external photo links, please ignore. That way it won't keep appearing in New Posts.
 
David777 ongoing photo upload testing post.

imagepost dot org verified uploaded NASA1.jpg 1920x1440 image correct size that when downloaded provided identical images sizes without compression. Base images used below evaluated from 100% pixels in Photoshop CS6.

Direct link: https://i.postimg.cc/NFjnx9cC/NASA1b.jpg 1920x1440 resized herein to 1687x1265 reduced to 87% slightly softer
NASA1b.jpg


https://i.postimg.cc/502Bjw10/NASA1c.jpg 1000x750 resized herein to 1579x1190 slightly softer because forum expanded 158%
NASA1c.jpg


https://i.postimg.cc/P5qKCs4h/NASA1d.jpg 500x375 resized herein to 795x598 slightly softer because forum expanded 158%
NASA1d.jpg


https://i.postimg.cc/ZqJmBLR6/SM00008-00046-3x1vy.jpg 1920x1440 resized herein to 1683x1267 reduced 87% slightly soft
SM00008-00046-3x1vy.jpg


At this point seem to understand less than ideal behaviors. When the forum software reduces an image because it is above a width threshold, it uses an 87% reduction algorithm with minor bw compression softening. When the forum software expands an image because it is below a width threshold, it uses an 157% expansion algorithm that softens an image mainly due to expansion. In either case there is not an option to display at a true linked image size as software tries to fit whatever to fixed panel widths. Bulletin board software needs to do so because they cannot depend on members to upload images within board policy limits and some of course will load enormous images directly off their camera devices that is a bandwidth issue as they technically understand little.
 
Last edited:
All images in above post look much worse than the one processed by the forum software. I suggest you upload as it is and leave it to the forum, it may look bad on your chrome but it's a local chrome problem which you can fix.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top