This is a reminder that photos in a post must not exceed 800 pixels wide and 600 pixels tall. Posts with photos larger than this will most likely be deleted by the moderators. The main reason for this is to prevent oversized threads that require the reader to sidescroll to finish every line. I understand that some may have beautiful large monitors, but a 800 x 600 pic fits the standard monitor without requiring sidescrolling.
Secondly, and I wouldn't mind feedback about this, a member recently sent me a suggestion that we should limit (not ban) the number of photos in posts, to allow speedier loading of pages for those with slower Internet connections. I have some sympathy regarding this situation as I often use dial-up myself, but I do understand that high-speed is almost the norm now. If we were to make any rules on this issue, I would definitely not include the Photo section of the forum.
First: an admission. I'm just about as clueless on computers as you could possibly imagine. Probably more so.
This photo came from my photobucket site. I was disappointed to see that it doesn't fill the width of the page on this forum, and cannot be read. Is there a way to size photos to fill this width, or to be readable? A place you can direct me to to for info? Or would it end up being too big in length (I know we have rules here on such things.) Thanks for your indulgence.
Thanks for posting this, Neil. Believe it or not, I have the exact same cutout that my Mom had in fact saved from the time.
BTW, you can adjust the upload size of the photo. The only thing is you will have to re-upload it with the adjusted setting.
Simply click on "Options", located above the "Browse" buttons where you pick which photos to upload.
From this point, you can select which resolution you want to upload the photo at. (Keep in mind anything larger than 800X600 pixels will be deleted by the Mod Squad, so just post the URL to the photo once it's uploaded) Once selected, simply click on "Save", and go on to choosing the photo(s) to upload.
Hopefully this helps you, and any future photobucket users.
One more (possibly dumb) question: why a 600 pixel length limit, as long as it's not so wide as to cause side scrolling? Considering that newspapers are longer than they are wide. Going to the next size up in photobucket makes a newspaper page about 675 x 1050- not too wide, but too long, and it becomes just readable.
Post by Coastal Skier on Mar 18, 2008 18:12:44 GMT -8
The 800x600 limit is there also for faster page loading for those with slower internet connections.
experience does for the soul what education does for the mind. British Columbia->New Zealand->Japan #jordanskisandexplores Flickr | Instagram ------------------------------------------------------------
Post by Scott (Former Account) on Jul 2, 2008 14:57:11 GMT -8
I think we can bend the rules for some newspaper articles, provided they add to the topic in discussion.
We normally aren't too concerned with how long an image is, as long as its width doesn't exceed 800 pixels. If the article you are posting is still difficult to read at that width, please provide a link to the larger image underneath the article or post a link with no image to the forum.
Post by Low Light Mike on Dec 15, 2009 17:20:49 GMT -8
In the past 3 days, I've had the pleasure of editing 3 different people's posts (or sending a PM reminder) because their post was causing side-scrolling.
- In 2 cases, this was because of images that were > 800px wide.
- In 1 case, this was because a copied URL from a google-search of a newspaper site was so long, that the address itself was causing side-scrolling.
Question: Doesn't anyone check to see if their posts are ok?
If you've just posted something, it only takes a few seconds to quickly review your post to ensure that the items are displaying correctly. Side-scrolling should be obvious, considering the normal width of the forum-pages on your screen.
If a post is worth your effort to post in the first place, please make the effort to check to make sure that it's readable for everyone.
Thanks to all those who do check to see that everything worked ok.
I found this thread while poking about, happily reading rules and the such.
I'm assuming that the maximum image sizes have changed to 1000 pixels wide - that being said, I usually post at between 640 and 800 wide as it's handy.
I'm a bit of a perfectionist sometimes when I post so I often make a few editorial changes to ensure everything lines up and looks pretty. You should see my camera shelf(ves).
Our maximum is now at 1024 x 768.
For vertical oriented (e.g. 'portrait' format) photos I have been choosing Flicker's 'medium' size option, which for a 3x4 aspect photo is 600 (w) x 800(t) pixels, as in the example below. Is this okay? If not, can the rules be changed just a little to permit that size (800 pixels tall)? Flicker's next size available with smaller dimensions would be 480 x 640 which I think is too small.
For vertical oriented (e.g. 'portrait' format) photos I have been choosing Flicker's 'medium' size option, which for a 3x4 aspect photo is 600 (w) x 800(t) pixels, as in the example below. Is this okay? If not, can the rules be changed just a little to permit that size (800 pixels tall)?
Yes, that's OK and likely preferable for the reasons that you noted.