Why the restriction on photo size changed

[Peter_AUS]

640 x 640 is very limiting to photo posting, I think 800 width restriction would be much better. I had difficulty posting an image yesterday of my daughter which made the photo (on my screen) not as well presented as I had wanted it to be.

Please reconsider this photo size restriction, it didn't used to be this restrictive. I agree with keep the size of the images down, but atleast make it a more acceptable size.

[Michael Fanelli]

640 x 640 is very limiting to photo posting, I think 800 width restriction would be much better. I had difficulty posting an image yesterday of my daughter which made the photo (on my screen) not as well presented as I had wanted it to be.

Please reconsider this photo size restriction, it didn't used to be this restrictive. I agree with keep the size of the images down, but atleast make it a more acceptable size.

Would 800 pixels even fit on most screens? Using scroll bars to move back and forth is not the best way to view a photo. Some people use very high monitor pixel widths but most of use, I would guess, are less than 1024 pixels for the total screen width.

[Peter_AUS]

Most people micheal run their screens at 800 x 600 or above and I think these days you would find the majority of people that visit this site would run even higher than that. Gone are the days where the majority of screens were only 14" screens, with low resolution graphics cards.

The size that the file limit is setup at the moment is too restrictive to the majority of images that I would suggest get posted here and have been posted here in the past. It is only recently that the file size has been reduced to 640 x 640.

[Asylum Steve]

...using IMG tags for photos on your own site? I would think then you could make them any size you want.

Personally, I prefer smaller photos when viewing web images, certainly nothing that fills the screen. I run my monitor at 1024x786, and like the pics to be about 1/3 to 1/4 the size of the screen or perhaps a bit larger. So I guess that would make them fit right in with the site's restrictions.

I find this size is perfectly fine to see an image and get a sense of impact. In fact, most all the horizontal pics on my web site's portfolio and gallery pages are only 400 pixels wide, and yet I'm very pleased with the way they look for prospective clients and customers.

Oh well, I guess we each have our preferences, but still I'm curious. What kind of limitation do you feel this puts on you?

[Arctirus]

Would 800 pixels even fit on most screens?

1600 pixels would fit on mine ;)

[Photo-John]

I don't believe we had a way to restrict the image size with the old forums software. The reason we restrict it is to keep file sizes small and to make sure images fit on the screen for everyone. I know 640x640 is small, but I think it's best to cater to the lowest common denominator when it comes to this. I know people who connect on old laptops via dialup. I'd like to do my best to make sure they can use the site as easily as possible.

If you really want to post larger photos, you can do as Steve suggests and use the html tags. That's could still be limiting for people who have slow connections, though. I think the best thing to do is post a larger image in the gallery and link to it. That's what I've done when I want to post a large image. I upload a small one to the forum, and a big one to the gallery, and then post a link to the full-res gallery image.

[Peter_AUS]

John,

You didn't on the old forums, but it also wasn't as restrictive on these new forums until recently as well. The viewing size of the image doesn't make the loading any different from one size to the next, the big number to load times is the actual file size which is restricted to 195k on the forums which is a decent size to limit it to. It is only recently that the size has been changed to 640 x 640 which necessitates a change to the image. One image I had to make the size around 500 x6?? to get it to load up because when I made the width smaller I ended up with the length at 666 and it wouldn't load up, so had to make the file size width even smaller to get it to load up.

I understand what you and Steve are saying but that isn't basically what I wanted to do.

I wonder what a poll would show up regarding screen sizes across the forum of members ??

[Trevor Ash]

I think 640 is plenty big.