Picture size...

[rzozaya1969]

Why does Photography review has such a small image size allowed? I think it's 640 x 480 pixels, while mtbr.com you can post up to 1024x768?

I would think that it should allow for larger images, specially since it is a photography site, and images are important.

[Photo-John]

It's sort of a legacy issue and sort of a design issue. It used to be that downloads were slower and people didn't run high resolutions on their monitors. That's not a problem now. However, I still run my monitor at 1024x768 and larger images screw up my forum display and that annoys me. If images matter, how you display them matters. I want to be able to see them without scrolling up and down or back and forth. Limiting the size of them in the forums ensures that I will be able to see the whole image. Plus, you can upload any size image you want in the gallery. I've always thought that the forums were for small images and if you wanted to share something larger you could post it in the gallery and link to it.

Am I the only that feels this way? If so, I am willing to consider changing the upload size. Personally, I think things are fine they way they are. But maybe I'm the only one.

[Chunk]

I agree with you John. 640 is big enough for purposes of the forums.

[M_Young]

I doubt larger size image really matter on a web site since we are limited by screen size in viewing web photos.