A request for those who post photos using Photobucket etc

I agree with Igor on this.
A good photograph demands its size and space in order to be enjoyed by the viewer.

If for some that size is too large for their monitor, I suggest you follow Willy's suggestion for changing monitor resolution. It's easy to set up a little click-it that comes up upon start-up, allows you to toggle back/forth between two resolutions for easy text/picture viewing.

If a short person goes to an art gallery,
he wouldn't ask that the pictures be moved lower so as to be at his eye level.

nena

Quote:

Originally posted by Natalie Ann I agree with Igor on this. A good photograph demands its size and space in order to be enjoyed by the viewer. If for some that size is too large for their monitor, I suggest you follow Willy's suggestion for changing monitor resolution. It's easy to set up a little click-it that comes up upon start-up, allows you to toggle back/forth between two resolutions for easy text/picture viewing. If a short person goes to an art gallery, he wouldn't ask that the pictures be moved lower so as to be at his eye level. nena

I'm new to this forum and have just posted a few times with 2 photos. Hello to everyone. I looked for a waving smilee but no such luck here.

I post to multiple forums with a common Photobucket account and agree whole heartedly with the above comments. I can't resize just to post here when those photos go out to my Facebook, AdvRider, ThumperTalk, Gmail and several other sites. All my family and friends have never complained about pic sizing and I've understood that they appreciate the increased visibility and impact of the larger formats. In fact, my photographer son wants the 10+ megpixel RAW format or he isn't satisfied....

I would hope that those who have computer disabilities would look at improving their resolutions rather than handicapping everyone else........

Quote:

Originally posted by Natalie Ann If a short person goes to an art gallery, he wouldn't ask that the pictures be moved lower so as to be at his eye level. nena

See what I mean??? Now the whole damn thread is screwed up.

edit to show nena that just because I'm only 4'-9" I should be able to go to the deYoung and enjoy myself.

[Edited on 11-30-2010 by Santiago]

[Edited on 12-1-2010 by BajaNomad]

Two possible answers:

1. Now that picture I would like smaller

or

2. Keep that Jack Daniels out of that man's reach

your choice.

Didn't screw up my screen, just filled the whole one.

Heck, that size picture made that Jack Daniels bottle jump right off the screen---smaller picture, might have missed it.

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago See what I mean??? Now the whole damn thread is screwed up. edit to show nena that just because I'm only 4'-9" I should be able to go to the deYoung and enjoy myself. [Edited on 11-30-2010 by Santiago]

Love it!

Looks like the ratio of alcohol to food stuffs is just about right.

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken Love it! Looks like the ratio of alcohol to food stuffs is just about right.

We could make them all vertical

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago Quote: Originally posted by Natalie Ann If a short person goes to an art gallery, he wouldn't ask that the pictures be moved lower so as to be at his eye level. nena Now that's a good one, right there. There's a class-action lawsuit if anyone wants it. A compromise maybe?: When posting in the Photo Forum, make 'em a s big as you want - that's the point of that place. But if you want to post a photo of a bunch of dead fish on the beach with a couple of overweight drunk gringos behind them with the pangero (who likely did all the damn work anyway) cut off at the neck and follow it up with 3 paragraphs of scintillating prose describing just how you managed to fool all those fish; MAKE THE PICTURE SMALLER. 'k?

Please document that claim......I just reviewed the rules and found nothing like that.....I did find that "hosted attachments" have a size limit....50meg? This is common on boards that accept and host the attachments. It is better for his server to not be burdened with my photos.....

Quote:

Originally posted by Sweetwater Quote: Originally posted by David K You guys against keeping them under 800 pixels are overlooking one IMPORTANT thing... Baja Nomad RULES for posting photos.. I guess you haven't read??? How about playing nice in Doug's playground... A photo over the 800x600 pixel limit HE posted will cause the TEXT to go OFF the screen, requiring left/ right scrolling of the entire page full of posts, not just to view the one over-sized photo. Photos on the Internet look great at 600 pixels... You can provide a link to the origial size where ever it is hosted if you want to show off the giant size image... Until we all get new equipment and Doug changes the rules... lets be considerate of him and those who have 15" monitors at the standard settings. Okay amigos? Please document that claim......I just reviewed the rules and found nothing like that.....I did find that "hosted attachments" have a size limit....50meg? This is common on boards that accept and host the attachments. It is better for his server to not be burdened with my photos.....

Thanks Kate,

It's obvious to me that there are several posters with computer disabilities and Doug did a great job of explaining how to accomplish the downsize.....however, there is no rule to do so. I much prefer the full size sunset in that thread and hope to see more of those in real life. I'd suggest that folks with the problems get the instruction to adjust their computers to accept and appreciate the increased detail and visual impact of these photos rather than try to limit others..........

JMHO....

Almost life like.

You know it's funny because YOU were the first one to reply to Doug's post ASKING us to limit the width to 600 pixels... here is your reply:

DianaT

Select Nomad




--------------------------------------------------------------------------------




Posts: 5866
Registered: 12-17-2004
Location: Bahia Asuncion, BCS
Member Is Offline

Mood: http://bahiaasuncion.org
posted on 3-23-2007 at 03:07 PM



Doug,

If the photo is stored on a site like photobucket, I know it should still be no wider than 600 pixels wide, but does it still need to be under 50KB?

If so, I will change the ones I have posted.

Thanks
Diane




Diane

=============================================

Just once more... here are your words: "I know it should still be no wider than 600 pixels wide..."

again: "I know it should still be no wider than 600 pixels wide..."

again: "I know it should still be no wider than 600 pixels wide..."

Okay?

Have a nice day!

whatever happened to "peace, love and fish tacos?" i think someone ate some bad fish!

the forum would be a more peaceful place if California would have legalized pot!

anywho, please post lots of pics of your pets, and don't worry (about pic dimensions), be happy! (annd go sign up for a medical cannibis )

Quote:

Originally posted by morgaine7 Quote: Originally posted by Sweetwater I much prefer the full size sunset in that thread and hope to see more of those in real life. I'd suggest that folks with the problems get the instruction to adjust their computers to accept and appreciate the increased detail and visual impact of these photos rather than try to limit others.......... JMHO.... And I much prefer the sunset that I can see all of without scrolling or messing with my display. I know how to maximize windows, change resolution, etc., but I don't wanna, because 99% of sites look just fine with my usual settings. Using Natalie Ann's analogy, asking me to change them would be like the gallery owner telling the short guy to jump up and down. OTOH, my day isn't normally ruined if somebody posts a (IMO) too-wide photo. When this has come up in the past, the issue has generally been that people don't know how to resize their photos to fit the forum layout. This is the first time I recall folks saying that they prefer them huge. Interesting ... anyhow, I'm good with the compromise suggested by Santiago. Or with vertical Jack Daniels style ... something for everybody, no? Kate

Yea Santiago had some very good ideas.

And ya know, there are so many scenes in baja, including so many sunsets that are just so much better in person---they just cannot be captured, regardless if it is at 300 or 2000 pixels wide.

But now, what would that sunset look like with the vertical Jack Daniels style. ---oh, what a great new genre---Jack Daniels.





[Edited on 12-1-2010 by DianaT]

Another sunrise for DianaT, sorry, couldn't resist.

Dang Willey,

I just don't have it down yet. Have to work on it.

Like a couple people mentioned, I usually, not always, but usually post no wider than 800 and it shows fine on my old 15" laptop, so I really didn't think it would mess up on others???

OK, goat mentioned pets pictures which irritate many, and I am still trying to get this new Jack Daniels Mode down --- then we work on getting that medical stuff legal.

So Willy, is this better?



[Edited on 12-1-2010 by DianaT]

Alright already. This is getting way out of hand.

Quote:

Originally posted by Santiago Alright already. This is getting way out of hand.

OK, just enjoying a cup of coffee.

Seriously, as Ken and Ken mentioned, I also usually do use 800 wide, and on photobucket it says it is for 15" screens ---so does this cause you to have to scroll back and forth?



[Edited on 12-1-2010 by DianaT]

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT Quote: Originally posted by Santiago Alright already. This is getting way out of hand. OK, just enjoying a cup of coffee. Seriously, as Ken and Ken mentioned, I also usually do use 800 wide, and on photobucket it says it is for 15" screens ---so does this cause you to have to scroll back and forth? [ [Edited on 12-1-2010 by DianaT]

Quote:

Originally posted by bajalou Quote: Originally posted by DianaT Quote: Originally posted by Santiago Alright already. This is getting way out of hand. OK, just enjoying a cup of coffee. Seriously, as Ken and Ken mentioned, I also usually do use 800 wide, and on photobucket it says it is for 15" screens ---so does this cause you to have to scroll back and forth? [ [Edited on 12-1-2010 by DianaT] No scrolling needed - It's perfect. Lou

is referring to my dog??

Still can't figure out why dog pictures annoy so many----but then again, I don't like bloody fish.

And I am sure Ken and Ken the dynamic photo duo will be happy to hear this.

[Edited on 12-1-2010 by DianaT]

What have we learned from this???????????????


That you, Diane, were the troublemaker!!




Seriously, 800 is a compromise most should be able to live with.

This is sure to pee everybody off:

Quote:

Originally posted by tripledigitken What have we learned from this??????????????? That you, Diane, were the troublemaker!! Seriously, 800 is a compromise most should be able to live with.

Who ME? OK, last photo was 1000---and I will reduce it now. And yes, guilty here, but it was just too easy--just way too easy. Besides, it was fun to stretch that big dog out---bet your little dog would look really cute all stretched out.

But at least now we all know----out with the idea of 640 and in with 800!!

Now back to real work---have not finished the one webpage, but have started a second one----time to see if I can drive the techs crazy.

Quote:

Originally posted by morgaine7 Ken!!! You let your dog play with a nudibranch? Kate

It's a fake nudibranch Kate - no worries

Ken Bondy

I LOVE that dog and I don't even know her---and I love that photo----and bingo, it is ONLY 800 wide.

Quote:

Originally posted by DianaT I LOVE that dog and I don't even know her---and I love that photo----and bingo, it is ONLY 800 wide.

You would love her more if you knew her Diane! She is a sweetheart, very precious animal. 5 years old now

While I never tire of looking at the photos of everyone's dogs, I do understand because I feel the same way about dead fish pictures, Toyota pictures, and a few other subjects. Oh well, guess a dog warning maybe warranted in the future so the thread can be skipped.

I like dead fish pictures

Better---no blood----but piercing eyes.

Nice photo work even if it is of dead fish.

I concur on the 800px-width. The default width set for the forum to display at is 728px - and was meant to fit the SVGA (800px width) screen resolution that was the lowest common standard at the time (2002) - and thusly the request for 600px-width even a few years ago (the thread I forwarded to David was from 2007). A 600px-width image with the table column for the usernames/avatars/etc being 130px, leaves it still just under the 800px-width (and within a couple of pixels of the 728px forum default).

Computer displays have improved greatly in the past 3-5 years or so, and today XGA or better can be expected (1024px width). Thus, an 800px-width image has a pretty good expectation of not causing any scrolling for viewers.

I think there does need to be some "limit" as a guideline, whatever that "limit" may be. Otherwise, if someone posts a 4000px-wide image that nobody can see as a whole image - it detracts from the viewer experience (well, at least most of them anyway) - and it should be resolved by adjusting it to the commonly understood "guideline".

Willy was right in noting it's not the size of the display (15", 17", 19", etc), but the resolution the display is set at (and/or capable of). You can read more about common display resolution standards here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_display_standard

Including this image showing the actual size differences in comparison:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e5/Vector_Vi...

As also noted earlier in the thread, you can always link to your higher resolution images too if you feel it's important for others to see some of the finer details in/of the image(s).



-
Doug

[Edited on 12-2-2010 by BajaNomad]

Ok, ok:

Thank you Ken... you are a good amigo!

I go to fish markets just to poke them.