+Thot Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 How big can pictures posted to a log be without getting resized? (I understand they resize for a giant thumbnail (elephant toenail?), I mean for the "original" image you get when you click on the toenail. How wide and tall in pixels (800x600, 1024x768, etc.)? How large a file (200 kb, 300 kb, etc.) Quote Link to comment
+Jeeters Posted July 22, 2004 Share Posted July 22, 2004 It says at the bottom of the upload page, "under 125k or 600 pixels wide". Quote Link to comment
+Thot Posted July 22, 2004 Author Share Posted July 22, 2004 (edited) I'd seen it somewhere, just couldn't remember where. I actually remembered the limits correctly, but I've seen more experienced people quote incorrect things (such as, pictures can't be larger than 600 pixels wide or the limit is 125kb), so I decided I'd better check my memory. Thanks Edited July 22, 2004 by Thot Quote Link to comment
+Subterranean Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 The “600 pixels wide” limit can be misleading. By “wide” they mean the horizontal measurement of the picture… regardless of whether the picture has a landscape or portrait orientation. If you have a landscape picture that is 840 pixels across by 600 pixels vertical (some would consider this 600 pixel measurement to be the width), for example, the picture will still be resized to 600 pixels across by 429 pixels vertical (assuming that the file exceeds 125kb in size). I find it most convenient to just be sure the file size is under 125kb. That way I can size the pictures to 600 by 840 pixels no matter what the orientation (I prefer not to make them much larger than this… I hate it when the page has to be scrolled to see the rest of the picture). Quote Link to comment
+CompuCash Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 (edited) 640x480 is a good size for uploading (and e-mail) since you have a computer and a camera you likely have some kind of photo editor - most let you resize the image - don't forget to save it under a new or different name so you don't blow out your original image. it is also a good size for web pages because it doesn't make the page so big you have to scroll around to see the whole image [ and make you scroll to read the text too ] Edited July 23, 2004 by CompuCash Quote Link to comment
+Alan2 Posted July 23, 2004 Share Posted July 23, 2004 I originally did a lot of 800 x 600 and 640 x 480 but then realized that 60-125K can be lot to download especialy if the viewer has a slow modem and there's number of pictures. So I've tried to reduce them. Here's one I did that's 480 x 360 with only 33K. Remember with jpeg, the quality setting also effects the total quantity. What I do is play with it and then save it and look to see if it it's OK before I download it. You can play with the quality and bytes depending on what you like. Also, I sharpen them a little after reducing it - seems to help. Good luck. Alan Quote Link to comment
+Thot Posted July 23, 2004 Author Share Posted July 23, 2004 I originally did a lot of 800 x 600 and 640 x 480 but then realized that 60-125K can be lot to download . . . But sometimes they just look so much better big Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.