• Welcome, Guest! We hope you enjoy the excellent technical knowledge, event information and discussions that the BMW MOA forum provides. Some forum content will be hidden from you if you remain logged out. If you want to view all content, please click the 'Log in' button above and enter your BMW MOA username and password.

    If you are not an MOA member, why not take the time to join the club, so you can enjoy posting on the forum, the BMW Owners News magazine, and all of the discounts and benefits the BMW MOA offers?

A Request on Sizing Your Photo's

R

rocketman

Guest
Lately I've seen a lot of great shots in the two most popular threads here and would like to request that any posting be limited to no more than 800 pixels wide, in those as well as any other photography thread. As everyone has no doubt noticed, when they run over the edge of a screen it can make reading the thread somewhat cumbersome. While I too love a good high quality image in all its glory could we perhaps provide links for the larger sizes and limit the image within the threads.

Thanks

RM
 
photobucket primer

How about a quick primer to help those that are having problems?
For example:

When using photobucket click on one of the choices in the drop down box before uploading photos. There are 15 different choices. Depending on your needs try using:

160 X 120 (small)
320 x 240 (medium)
640 x 480 (large)

Using this method your photos stay unchanged on your computer and photobucket takes are of the heavy lifting.

I'll leave other sites out there to folks who frequent those locations.
 
Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.
 
most modern PC screens aren't designed to run less than 1024 and in fact most all the flat screens that come with PCs now (and even the cheapest machines around) are designed to run at least 1280. I have a 2 year old Acer 22" on my desk that I run at 1680. 800x600 for pictures is more than reasonable. If you're looking at the internet in general at ANYTHING less than that you 1) should have a MUCH bigger monitor and 2) are used to scrolling anyhow.

I found a nice simple freeware photo editor that allows easy resizing:
http://www.softartstudio.com/photoscontrol/
 
Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.


Understand that the forum adds a good number of pixels to the width of the display, not including the pictures. There's the column on the left, with our names and avatars, The spacing between the columns and then the spacing and framing on the right. It's not unreasonable to say that an 800x600 image fills the screen on a 1024 wide display because of all the extra width added by the forum.

Consider also that most browsers add a header for program control, and a footer for information and you end up with a significantly shorter browser window as well.

I'm using a 19" LCD set to 1152x764. Any higher resolution than that and I need a magnifying glass.
 
400x300:
(Smugmug "small")
334906885_Pszkp-S.jpg


600x450:
(Smugmug "medium")
334906885_Pszkp-M.jpg


800x600:
(Smugmug "large")
334906885_Pszkp-L.jpg
 
Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.

I agree here wholeheartedly. It is standard for me to re-size to 1024x768.

Although, beyond a ride report I have posted (as seen HERE), I have not contributed here photographically. This rule would discourage me from doing so.

Also, this forum is using the vBulletin Legacy (old) templates, but coming up to the current standard (as seen HERE) would move the user information to the top of the postbits effectively increasing the width.
 
If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.

Some people may already skip the images and ride tales that require them to scroll all over the place to read the text and see the images.:dunno Consider it like a magazine gatefold. Would you take the time to unfold every page in a magazine to read an article? They're printed in a convenient format for a reason. Most images I've seen look best when I can see the whole thing. Conversely, if I can't see the whole thing it doesn't look good. We may not be doing our art any justice by providing oversize images for the viewers that can't see them as we intend.

I agree here wholeheartedly. It is standard for me to re-size to 1024x768.

Although, beyond a ride report I have posted (as seen HERE), I have not contributed here photographically. This rule would discourage me from doing so.

Also, this forum is using the vBulletin Legacy (old) templates, but coming up to the current standard (as seen HERE) would move the user information to the top of the postbits effectively increasing the width.



I've seen some great shots here by a great many people. It would truely be a loss if some chose not to participate because they're not willing to accomodate a simple request from the mod.
 
A simple view...

I think the 800 X 600 looks just right and one does not loose any real resolution as the sample above demonstrates.

Just another persons view....:dunno
 
I've seen some great shots here by a great many people. It would truely be a loss if some chose not to participate because they're not willing to accomodate a simple request from the mod.

If I *only* posted here it would be no issue. But I post to at LEAST 4 boards. This rule would require a second set of resizing, uploading a second set of photos, and close to double the space on my web host. All for one site. Seeing as a lot of people post here and at least 2 of the other sites I visit (r1150r.net and adv), you can see why I would be reluctant.
 
If I *only* posted here it would be no issue. But I post to at LEAST 4 boards. This rule would require a second set of resizing, uploading a second set of photos, and close to double the space on my web host. All for one site. Seeing as a lot of people post here and at least 2 of the other sites I visit (r1150r.net and adv), you can see why I would be reluctant.

If your images run over the edges of my screen here, what makes you think that they won't do it over there either? (see earlier post about taking away from your art) I'm not saying you're right or wrong, I'm just sayin'...

I can see how the right sided column in the 1150r board would accomodate bigger pictures, but ADVRider is using the same software as here.:dunno
 
Could Canary provide us some stats on what screen resolution members are accessing the forum in?
When I look at the resolution stats for my blog, 3% of viewers are a resolution less than 1024. If that stat holds for the forum, I'm not inclined to post smaller pics to support the 3% of members who are still 800 or less.

Roughly 5% of our visitors are using a monitor set to 800x600. This is, as you note, both a tiny size and a small number of visitors.

However, monitor size doesn't translate directly. Once you've taken in account tool bars, etc, you're down to 1000 or less pixels of usable space. Subtract the forum layout (a very common layout), and anything over 800 pixels wide for an image posted here is pushing it. Besides, if your image looks good at 800 pixels wide, it'll look good at 600. Conversely, bigger won't make it markedly better. In addition, many users on larger monitors don't open their browser windows to the full width of the screen. What might make for good image viewing isn't what's best for reading text.
 
If I *only* posted here it would be no issue.

:nod Also, not every camera uses the 4:3 aspect ratio that looks good at 800x600. My camera, assuming no crops, is 3:2. My "web quality" is currently 900:600 (or something close). That still looks pretty small on my 19200 x 1200 monitor even thought I'm using less than 1/2 of the width for my browser.

// marc
 
Well I certainly didn't mean to start a major discussion on this issue, it was as I said a request.
This came about by the fact that I have noticed that images of late seem to be getting larger and larger making it necessary to scroll a good bit to see them and once a single image overruns the screen it effects the entire page. I chose 800 based also on the fact that several photo sites (such as Dgrin) request that size in their contests and in fact will rule your submission out if you go beyond this. So I took what seems to still be a fairly standard size based on info from the pro sites I'm on.

And as several folks have pointed out, when you take into account the forum software side bars and any sidebars in your browser anything over 800 or so on a 1024 width screen causes you to either have to narrow the sidebar of you browser or scroll in the image/post area. I did also consider that for many photo sharing sites you can pick a display size from a drop down menu and many seem to also include a tool for enclosing the properly sized image file with image tags that you can cut and paste directly into your post, so you don't have to create a second set when uploading, you can specify the re-sizing parameters in the photo sharing software and it handles all resizing for you across your entire photo site. And since 1024`still seems to be a fairly standard size used by many, esp those whose eyesight may not be what it once was, I was simply asking that we consider ease of viewing, esp when there is text included.

So given all those I don't see this as an unreasonable request. If it causes some not to post here, well, any set of rules or requests will turn away some or at least cause them some hesitation to post here, but I would hope that a sense of common respect and the spirit of working together to provide the best experience for all users would prevail.

Again it is merely a request on my part, not a hard and fast rule, take it as you will, I certainly do not intend in taking any action if your images are larger but i would hope most would take this request in the spirit it was brought forward.

RM
 
Well then, I learned new things. I didn't take into account the rest of the screen issues. I can post a smaller copy. I'll save the 1024 shots for the camera forum...
 
How about a quick primer to help those that are having problems?
For example:

When using photobucket click on one of the choices in the drop down box before uploading photos. There are 15 different choices. Depending on your needs try using:

160 X 120 (small)
320 x 240 (medium)
640 x 480 (large)

Using this method your photos stay unchanged on your computer and photobucket takes are of the heavy lifting.

I'll leave other sites out there to folks who frequent those locations.

400x300:
(Smugmug "small")
334906885_Pszkp-S.jpg


600x450:
(Smugmug "medium")
334906885_Pszkp-M.jpg


800x600:
(Smugmug "large")
334906885_Pszkp-L.jpg

Thank you Paul and Boney for providing this info. While I have looked at number of photo sharing sites and software to get a pretty good idea on the most common features shared among them, such as auto-resizing from a single image and posting EXIF data I don't know the particulars of how its done in each as I host my own photos using Gallery II software, so if others would share their knowledge on the sites they use, it would be most appreciated.

Again, I certain do not wish to alienate anyone by my request I was simply trying to consider what seems to work best for the most members. As I have stated before here and on other threads, this is your site, I see my role as more a guide than as an arbitrator or mod and endeavor to maintain a view of what seems to serve the greatest good for the membership based on what I perceive is in keeping with the desires of the membership as a whole.

So please keep all those great images coming!
And Boney I love the riot of colors in those images! Very nicely done.
RM
 
For me, at home my monitor is a 20" Wide Screen @ 1680*1050 resolution.

At work it's a dual 19" setup @ 1280*1024 each (effectively 2560*1024) so I rarely run into the issue of screen scrolling.

I understand the requests intent, and it was not my intent to start a heavy discussion either. Rather to voice my opinion on the topic once I saw that I was not alone in that opinion.
 
For me, at home my monitor is a 20" Wide Screen @ 1680*1050 resolution.

At work it's a dual 19" setup @ 1280*1024 each (effectively 2560*1024) so I rarely run into the issue of screen scrolling.

I understand the requests intent, and it was not my intent to start a heavy discussion either. Rather to voice my opinion on the topic once I saw that I was not alone in that opinion.

Understood and please always feel free to express your concerns or provide input. The more I hear from the members the better I am able to judge what the consensus is. I can understand how my previous comment may have been taken.

RM
 
While I have looked at number of photo sharing sites and software to get a pretty good idea on the most common features shared among them, such as auto-resizing from a single image and posting EXIF data I don't know the particulars of how its done in each as I host my own photos using Gallery II software, so if others would share their knowledge on the sites they use, it would be most appreciated.

Most of my snapshots (very few rate the title photos :)) and the shots from some fellow riders of the local groups I ride with are hosted on my private site. It is not a forum site, just a place for the various groups to share trip reports and photos. Since it is not a forum the photos are not inline. Thumbnails are used. When someone wants to see the entire image they click on the thumbnail to cause the image to overlay the entire window, hiding the text below. This method lets a 900 x 600 (several riders use SLRs with a 3:2 aspect ratio) fit in the browser window. The P&S users have their photos sized at 800 x 600. Images with a vertical orientation are sized at 500 x 750.

The posted photos include full EXIF info (when available). Mac users can drag an image to something like "EXIF Viewer" to see the data. Firefox users can grab the FxIF plug-in to show EXIF info on an image. Apparently there is also ViewEXIF which works on Internet Explorer. It annoys me no end that smugmug apparently strips the exif so I can't use these tools with images hosted on smugmug.

It is not always true that an image that looks good at 800 will look good at 600 (or smaller). There are images that look great full screen on my 19200 x 1200 moniter yet are nothing when shrunk to web size. It is not uncommon for me to toss images after exporting for web for just that reason. Perhaps if I had a better eye, i.e was a better photographer, that wouldn't be true. :dunno

Enough :type . I just would not like to see an "800 max width" rule as that would mean max height of about 532 for 3:2 which is a bit to small for my eyes.

// marc
 
Most of my snapshots (very few rate the title photos :)) and the shots from some fellow riders of the local groups I ride with are hosted on my private site. It is not a forum site, just a place for the various groups to share trip reports and photos. Since it is not a forum the photos are not inline. Thumbnails are used. When someone wants to see the entire image they click on the thumbnail to cause the image to overlay the entire window, hiding the text below. This method lets a 900 x 600 (several riders use SLRs with a 3:2 aspect ratio) fit in the browser window. The P&S users have their photos sized at 800 x 600. Images with a vertical orientation are sized at 500 x 750.

The posted photos include full EXIF info (when available). Mac users can drag an image to something like "EXIF Viewer" to see the data. Firefox users can grab the FxIF plug-in to show EXIF info on an image. Apparently there is also ViewEXIF which works on Internet Explorer. It annoys me no end that smugmug apparently strips the exif so I can't use these tools with images hosted on smugmug.

It is not always true that an image that looks good at 800 will look good at 600 (or smaller). There are images that look great full screen on my 19200 x 1200 moniter yet are nothing when shrunk to web size. It is not uncommon for me to toss images after exporting for web for just that reason. Perhaps if I had a better eye, i.e was a better photographer, that wouldn't be true. :dunno

Enough :type . I just would not like to see an "800 max width" rule as that would mean max height of about 532 for 3:2 which is a bit to small for my eyes.

// marc

Thanks I am aware now that for some it may not be easy to re size and I don't have a problem with that and certainly 900 width should work fine. The sidebar of the browser can be closed easy enough to allow enough room. I also like to print many of my photos at larger sizes, esp since I now have a decent home photo printer and also have some smaller sensor cameras with a different aspect ratio think many have greater impact at larger sizes such as landscapes. (In fact I'm working up some my shots from the trip to Bermuda that include some great landscapes and panoramas I took and will post a report soon as well some images and links to my pano viewer on my home page)

So let me restate my original thought which is a request to limit the sizes of your shot as best as you can and consider those who use laptops and such with 1024 width screen settings. And if you want to show off your work at full size you can always include a link to the full size images.

Thanks again for the input, I really do listen and appreciate it.

RM
 
Back
Top