Some image posting thoughts ...

Not bitching here! Just some comments.

Much of my work is dealing with images, web stuff and I also run a small BBS too. I am of the opinion that size limitations on pics can help ... everyone. I still use dial-up .. partly from choice cos of being able to test my page download times etc.

Very often, people seem to be posting their pics (digital camera, or scanned) at higher res than needed. many of course are superb pics but ... with a terrible ''overhead''. Plus, some are so wide that they force scrolling horizontally. I run a 21" monitor so can go big with browser but even so sometimes pics are way larger than needed. Those with smaller screens must find it annoying at times.

May I suggest .... what I think works well .... assuming people can crop and size ....... is a max width around 500 pixel ..... and sufficient compression then to finish up with a JPG of around 35k - 40k ..... plenty big enough IMO. On occasions even a well compressed 400 pixel wide is enough ... and then even 25k filesize can be achieved. You'll notice most or all of pics I post are broadly within these parameters.

Just some thoughts!

I am of the opinion

I am of the opinion that broadband rules! I hate small pics with a passion. For me, the bigger the better. I can chomp down a 1MB picture in less than a second. Welcome to the 21st century! :neener:

P95 is right. I am of the opinion that out of consideration for members who have slow Internet connections (like me) it would be nice of people to post reasonably sized photos. By all means provide a link to the hi-res version if you want, but for most people, a smaller, 40K or less file is plenty.

The only flaw in your logic, P95, is that you assume that people can crop and size their photos. That is not always the case.

OK, OK ... broadband rules .... if ya got it! Not everyone has, or can afford it ....... plus, a site's bandwidth also gets eaten up way quicker with larger files involved.

I have no dislike of big pics .... unless they force horizontal scrolling .... but often smaller is well adequate. We'll agree to differ.:p :)

BlueMan .. true enough ....... I do realize that not all can manipulate their pics ... I am so used to doing it of course.

However .. sometimes a digi pic can be taken as a smaller version or ... even the use of a freebie like ''Irfanview'' would make downsizing within reach of all .. no great difficulty when using that small app .... cos i know not everyone has the PhotoShop type stuff.

Not seeking to be restrictive ... just looking for a better compromize.:)

I would suggest using text links to images much larger than 100KB or so...this way, small images load as inlines, large images become optional for viewers.

Example: 11KB thumbnail
http://www.olegvolk.net/newphotos/tn2/enstad_.jpg

217KB large image of a 1911 (http://www.olegvolk.net/newphotos/tn2/1998A1.jpg)

I like Oleg's suggestion the best, even though I never post any image inline. But then I've been around computers since back in the day and even still follow the rule that more than four lines in your sig is a rude waste of bandwidth :)

Even if people don't want to reduce image filesize for whatever reason, if they would reduce dimensions that would be really nice. The one pet peeve I have is having to horizontally scroll to read all text in a thread because an image way up the page is rolling off.