Picture sizes on GC.com

[+Fuchsiamagic]

I'm sure there used to be a section where you could post about the geocaching.com website, but I can't find it now.

 

Have the photos on GC.com got smaller? Back in 2008 I uploaded a photo at 800 X 600 pixels which is still displayed at 800 X 600. http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/c3aac2a5-ce83-48c9-ae12-48c6d9fcbedc.jpg

 

I uploaded one just now (2592 X 1944) and it has been resized down to 600 X 450! http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/08d0d92c-574f-4abc-9566-6278f09c3dad.jpg

 

Have the picture sizes been reduced?

[+Maple Leaf]

I'm sure there used to be a section where you could post about the geocaching.com website, but I can't find it now.

 

Have the photos on GC.com got smaller? Back in 2008 I uploaded a photo at 800 X 600 pixels which is still displayed at 800 X 600. http://img.geocachin...8c6d9fcbedc.jpg

 

I uploaded one just now (2592 X 1944) and it has been resized down to 600 X 450! http://img.geocachin...278f09c3dad.jpg

 

Have the picture sizes been reduced?

 

I have always done mine as 600 x 450

[+Moote]

That image is defiantly 800 by 600 (If this remark offends you I apologise in advance)

[+Haggis Hunter]

The second image that you have uploaded is to large for the system. The system does make a has of editing them down to size, so you are always best to do this before hand. I always reduce mine to 800x600, but sometimes the image size (as in KB's) is still to large and they get hashed down.

 

Try resizing your picture yourself and uploading it and see what happens.

[+keehotee]

I'm sure there used to be a section where you could post about the geocaching.com website, but I can't find it now.

 

 

This is the forum I think you're referring to....

 

....but it looks like your question may have been answered

[I!]

You can get some reasonably big images onto the web site if you are prepared to drop a little quality in order to bring the number of bytes down to sub-125K.

 

In this one, I converted to a 16-colour palette then saved as compressed PNG, ~120K in size I think. When converted back to JPEG by the web site, it ballooned to ~210K! Not my problem, though, as it was small enough at upload time

 

In this one, I guess the person who uploaded the photo saved it as compressed JPEG (at, what, 80% "quality" whatever that means?). Despite this being a lossy form of compression, I think the results look good.

 

The other thing to remember is that the width limit is just that ... width. You want a long tall image uploaded within GS molesting it? Fine. 600 x 9999 it is, then!

[+martlakes]

I generally do mine now at 900 width, but save them at 15 quality, which nearly always gets them down to well below the 125k max. 900 seems to fit todays monitors well. For examples, see any of my pics posted to the forums in the Dec/Jan photo competitions. On the screen the quality seems perfectly ok, as you're only viewing at 72dpi I believe.

 

As an aside, do Americans have a different form of grammar?

I've never thought this sentence was even close to English:

If your original image is under 125k or 600 pixels wide, the largest image will not be resized.

Almost as good as "Needs Archived"

No offence to anyone, but it's always bugged me.