What is the best way of displaying images on this Forum?

hazwing

Regular
I've been looking at some of the images I have been posting on these forums, some how they just don't seem as sharp and clear. Does the forum software compress the images? And if so what should I do so that the images look crispy/sharp?

I feel in the past, linking images from Flickr with the BB code, the images seemed a bit more clear. So I'm not sure if that is a better way of attaching photos instead of uploading into the forum software?

Also I feel the images I am linking are 'too big'. On my laptop to view the image, you need to scroll vertically to see the image from top to bottom. I'd prefer the image to be a smaller size, so the whole image can be viewed as whole without scrolling. What dimensions should I export to, so the whole image can be seen in most monitors?
 

wee-pics

Legend
Location
Germany
Name
Walter
I've been looking at some of the images I have been posting on these forums, some how they just don't seem as sharp and clear. Does the forum software compress the images? And if so what should I do so that the images look crispy/sharp?

I feel in the past, linking images from Flickr with the BB code, the images seemed a bit more clear. So I'm not sure if that is a better way of attaching photos instead of uploading into the forum software?

Also I feel the images I am linking are 'too big'. On my laptop to view the image, you need to scroll vertically to see the image from top to bottom. I'd prefer the image to be a smaller size, so the whole image can be viewed as whole without scrolling. What dimensions should I export to, so the whole image can be seen in most monitors?
The website reduces the size of the photos automatically when you upload them. But you can reduce them before uploading with your own algorithm. A good size would be 1600x1200 pixels for 4:3 pics. There are some posters who make them smaller which I don't like. I love to see them full-screan (21''), not postcard format.
 
Location
Lota, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Name
Larry Griffiths
I remember reading somewhere that the forum reduces photos to 1600 pixels along the long edge. So, if linking from Flickr, choose 1600 pixels along the long edge for landscape orientation photos.

For portrait orientation photos, it gets a bit more complicated..... My 27" monitor has a 16:9 aspect ratio. Again, linking from Flickr, choose 1600 * 9 / 16 = 900 pixels along the long edge, or the next value below 900.

Let's see how this works:

Firstly 533 x 800:

51641684627_4afcc641ca_c.jpg



Now 683 x 1024:

51641684627_4afcc641ca_b.jpg

Rainbow Bee-eater by Laurence Griffiths, on Flickr
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
I remember reading somewhere that the forum reduces photos to 1600 pixels along the long edge. So, if linking from Flickr, choose 1600 pixels along the long edge for landscape orientation photos.

For portrait orientation photos, it gets a bit more complicated..... My 27" monitor has a 16:9 aspect ratio. Again, linking from Flickr, choose 1600 * 9 / 16 = 900 pixels along the long edge, or the next value below 900.

Let's see how this works:

Firstly 533 x 800:

View attachment 356742


Now 683 x 1024:

View attachment 356743
Rainbow Bee-eater by Laurence Griffiths, on Flickr
Larry, the main problem with not linking to the "original size" from Flickr is that Flickr strips the EXIF data from every other size image, which is a PITA for those of us who like to see such information.
 
Location
Lota, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Name
Larry Griffiths
Larry, the main problem with not linking to the "original size" from Flickr is that Flickr strips the EXIF data from every other size image, which is a PITA for those of us who like to see such information.
I agree 100% John. Here is an example exported at 800 pixels along the long edge:


LJG31159-ORF_DxO_DeepPRIME.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


And at 900 pixels along the long edge:

LJG31159-ORF_DxO_DeepPRIME 1.jpg
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Last edited:
Location
Lota, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Name
Larry Griffiths
The 800px image looks a lot more "jaggedy" than the 900px image. I think that Capture One may have a bit of a problem with the export.

I am leaning towards providing the Flickr link to the image displayed on the board for those who want to see the EXIF data.
 

John King

Member of SOFA
Location
Beaumaris, Melbourne, Australia
Name
John ...
Likewise. I think that may be a Capture One Export problem.
I never use "Export for the Web" with any software, for a number of reasons, of which the degradation of your image is but one, Larry.

I resize and "save as" in an upload folder on a different disk, then upload to my website using (FTP) FileZilla.
 
Last edited:

wee-pics

Legend
Location
Germany
Name
Walter
I remember reading somewhere that the forum reduces photos to 1600 pixels along the long edge. So, if linking from Flickr, choose 1600 pixels along the long edge for landscape orientation photos.

For portrait orientation photos, it gets a bit more complicated..... My 27" monitor has a 16:9 aspect ratio. Again, linking from Flickr, choose 1600 * 9 / 16 = 900 pixels along the long edge, or the next value below 900.

Let's see how this works:

Firstly 533 x 800:

View attachment 356742


Now 683 x 1024:

View attachment 356743
Rainbow Bee-eater by Laurence Griffiths, on Flickr
What a complicated calculation!
I take 1600x1200 for landscape and 1200x1600 for portrait, this corresponding to 4x3 ratio.
With 3:2 ratio it's 1800:1066 (or 1500:1000) or the other way round for portrait.
 
Location
Lota, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Name
Larry Griffiths
What a complicated calculation!
I take 1600x1200 for landscape and 1200x1600 for portrait, this corresponding to 4x3 ratio.
With 3:2 ratio it's 1800:1066 (or 1500:1000) or the other way round for portrait.
The problem with that is that a portrait oriented photo won't fit onto the monitor and you will have to scroll backwards and forwards to view the image. The other alternative is to do what I did with my last image above. - Provide a full resolution link from Flickr and then edit the post to resize the image to fit.
 

wee-pics

Legend
Location
Germany
Name
Walter
The problem with that is that a portrait oriented photo won't fit onto the monitor and you will have to scroll backwards and forwards to view the image. The other alternative is to do what I did with my last image above. - Provide a full resolution link from Flickr and then edit the post to resize the image to fit.
Now I understand what you meant, Larry. Excuse the non-native's confusion. :hide::dash2:
 

Kevin

Code Monkey 🐒
edit the post to resize the image to fit
Honestly, that may be overthinking it a bit because using the post edit function to resize the image is only regards to the current device viewport size. What I mean by that is that a really wide image, for example, will never cause a left-to-right scollbar to show because the image display size will always max out to the current screen size with the max H & W changing accordingly.

Based on the image dimensions some users, no matter if they're on mobile or desktop, may see some images H longer than their current screen, and will need to scroll down to see the full image , but there is no way to control that since it is based on the users device display settings.
 
Location
Lota, Brisbane, QLD, Australia
Name
Larry Griffiths
Honestly, that may be overthinking it a bit because using the post edit function to resize the image is only regards to the current device viewport size. What I mean by that is that a really wide image, for example, will never cause a left-to-right scollbar to show because the image display size will always max out to the current screen size with the max H & W changing accordingly.

Based on the image dimensions some users, no matter if they're on mobile or desktop, may see some images H longer than their current screen, and will need to scroll down to see the full image , but there is no way to control that since it is based on the users device display settings.
I see that. The image will always max out at the width of the current screen. But is there a way of setting the image to max out at the width of the current screen, or the height of the current screen, whichever is the more limiting?
 

Darmok N Jalad

The eye of the potato, the thrill of the fries.
Location
Tanagra
A lot of editors have a “long edge” max, so you don’t have to do the short edge dimension in your calculations. This is great for the odd-aspect cropping that may go on.
 
Top