Are big pictures in threads annoying? Vote yes and get a free half bottle of beer. S&H only $99.

BLF Site-related Issues
28

You can set image size in the advanced editor too, but in a bit weird way: instead of setting width to a certain amount of pixels, instead fill in a percentage in the width field, i.e “70%” , then empty the height field.

29

Good to know. :+1:

30

Yes! Very nice, djozz.

31

I rarely notice long load times, but layout-breaking pics are a thing. Use max-width.

32

So if I upload a large pic to imgur and copy and paste the link in blf using the insert image option then click on relative width and set to 50% does blf have to resize the image ever time it’s viewed and the page loads slow?
This is how I do it to make sure the image doesn’t take up the whole page. If it’s slowing down browsing for some members I’ll resize the image in imgur first before linking.

I vote yes, so where’s my free beer?

33

Most people won’t because their DSL, cable, whatever is fast enough. But when on cell data those big files gobble data unnecessarily. Sometimes when I can see the images “painted” line by line I could scream.

34

The beer is free. $14.99 prepaid for shipping and handling. :money_mouth_face: …… :confounded:

I don’t know about others, the issue I have is the size in the thread. What set this off was a seller posted these enormous pictures that I kept scrolling and scrolling….then hit these tiny posts.

If people put “100” then it’s post width and that should be fine. For me…but others may have data and speed issues on their phones.

35

I knew there was a catch regarding the free beer☹️

36

So, when using that relative width dialog, you’ll get something like:

!https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg!:https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg

But if you just want to make sure it doesn’t break the layout, change it to:

!{max-width: 100%}https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg!:https://i.imgur.com/3rZNm2r.jpg
37

Yup.

I’m no programmer but it appears that 100% represents 100% of the normal post box width. Big or small.

Here is an example of a pic that is very small but is full post box width….13.8 kb.

Same size image….different percentages.

100%

50%

25%

5%

38

The important distinction is that max-width won’t stretch the image if the screen is large, while width will.

39

I’m not sure what you are saying.

See my example above. Choosing the width controls how much of the posting box it fills, no matter what the actual picture size.

40

It's a shame max-width doesn't seem to be an option if you're using the Advanced Post Editor.

41

It does, or so djozz said. See the below example at a 200% 103% O:) width:

^:)

Edited: reduced the 200% annoyance to 103%. Setting it ridiculously high causes havoc you must know. :-D

Sat, 03/23/2019 - 11:08; Sat, 03/23/2019 - 18:00

42

So for the “any size” people I should PM them a 335MP 296MB image? (34,485x9741 pixels)

The above is the full sized version of this…

43

DB…I have a spectacular view like this from my inherited house in the old country. Too bad the house is over a century old and hardly anybody lives in the village.

In fact……where is the picture from?

44

That photo was taken from just below Nogal Peak looking towards Ski Apache in the mountains just North/Northwest of Alto, New Mexico. It’s actually 43 images at 18MP in 3 tiers, taken with a Canon 7D and 24-105mm lens at 105mm.

I envy you, the view there was breathtaking, my wife and I enjoyed it immensely. The town of Nogal on the North side of Nogal Pass is only 96 people, only even on the map because the Post Office has been there since 1880.

45

To illustrate max-width, here’s an image of two Emisar D18s. It’s 619px wide, so if you view it on a typical phone, it will be wider than the post panel, or the phone’s screen. Viewed on a desktop, it’s considerably narrower than the space available.

First, with max-width: 100%

And now with width: 100%

Both fill 100% of the space on a narrow screen, but the second is stretched on a wider screen.

46

I always put 95. I absolutely cannot stand when people ignore scaling their image. Maybe the webmaster can set some kind of default width of 100? That way this catches mistakes. But yeah, I also think it’s painfully negligent and inconsiderate for people to embed images greater than a couple megabytes. 15Mb? That’s OBNOXIOUS.

47

In my user stylesheet (managed with Stylus) for BLF, I have

img {max-width: 100%;}

which means no image is allowed to be larger than its container. This could be added to the forum CSS.