More on sizing images

[Cool Camel]

There's an option in the forum software for

Max width of posted pictures (0 = disable)

Right now it's at 0.

What do you folks think it should be at?

[RobAmy]

800 max on the long side

[Paul Shields]

Can the left column (the bit showing the poster's name) be reduced? This seems to take up quite a bit of width, which becomes really obvious when images are embedded.

[mikej]

I have been posting a number of long panoramas. These are long but they aren't very high. If this gets set to narrow then it is going to mess up any long panoramas that people post... or make them so small that there won't be any detail. I say live it as it is. If someone posts a too big of an image, let one of the Camel Jocks... uh, I mean moderators let the offender know.

Mike

[mikej]

While there are still people using dial up, bandwidth isn't the issue it was a few years ago. I would rather see a 56K warning on those few images that are bigger than 800 pixels than start forcing a size limit on images. And it's not the image size in pixels that's the issue, it's how many bytes in the file. I can have a 400x400 pixel image that's several megs in size. Or I can have a 1500 pixel on the long side that's only 120K or less file size. Rather than forcing the size of the print, I'd rather see a limit to the file size. If people process their jpeg correctly and not use the highest quality setting, file size can be greatly reduced, which those with dial ups will benifit from much more than a small picture that takes away from the members being able to enjoy looking at it.

Mike

[Neil V]

I have always used 640 on the long side for anything I post on the net unless it's a special panoramic type of shot...

Neil