So how do you find out what the pixel size of an image is. I looked through my album to see if I could locate that info. On my previous IPhone, images were automatically resized when uploading to PB but I don’t see that now and don’t remember what the standard size was. I’m doing my posts from an iPad mini nowadays.
Sorry RBD. I cant help with anything I___. I just use MS Office picture editor. I should use Photoshop but my kids dont know how to. 
I sometimes use Windows Paint to re-size, crop and even do some quick touchups since I don’t have Photoshop on every computer. Whatever works!
Much appreciated Racer and Chloe!
No more fiddling around with pixels for me. 
(It just dawned on me, you’re probably going to think I’m cyber-stalking you, but I’m not.)
This works for me: I shoot at the best settings my camera will allow, then save them to disk. Before I post them, I decide whether they’ll need full quality or just “enough”. They’re all much larger (x by y) than most screens, so I’m going to use the 100% (or 80, or 5 or whatever) and leave the resolution as-is. For the ones that actually need to be of the highest quality (a close-up of a driver board, e.g.) I leave them uncompressed. For the “not likely to be clicked upon to see full size” pictures, I re-save them to disk with JPEG Compression set to 50%, which can take a ~2-4MB picture & make it ~500k or less, sometimes dramatically less, depending on content.
This way, the “100%” keeps it all on our screens, the resolution x color depth (bits per pixel) keeps the image not too unfortunate to have to look at, and the compression makes it fast to load. I always duplicate the URL of the image so y’all can click on it to see it full size.
When I do Mouseovers, the “on mouseover” picture can be viewed by Right-click->View Image, so I make the onclick = to the URL of the “mouseout” picture, giving full-size access to both.
The hard part is finding a program that gives you that kind of control over your images. Needless to say, nothing MS makes even reads EXIF (so you have to Rotate them manually too), so a 3rd-party (like ACDSee) will have to come to the rescue.
OTOH, stretching a small picture (640*480, e.g.) to a modern monitor screen size is very ugly, so THANK YOU for bringing this up!
Dim
Since I know little to nothing about photography/pictures, I feel the same. As a result…
I nearly always use paint to resize before uploading. I find the size I see on paint is the size I see when it gets posted. Saves on upload time and space too. I’m sure photoshop and others have more features but I don’t needed it.
I tend to shoot at the higher resolutions most of the time. Even if it’s for web use I’ll shoot at a resolution slightly higher than need be.
This is so I can have the option of down-sizing, if needed.
Whatever image I’m gonna post on BLF, I first do a “preview” (at say, 75%) to see how it’s going to come out.
If that’s too large then I’ll reduce the percentage further (say, 50%).
I think the options given on BLF are just rilght
It allows one to “re-size” the images according to their intended use.
For example, if you’re posting images in a flashlight review, you’ll want then a little larger; whereas ‘incidental’ images
can be made somewhat smaller.
Irfanview and GIMP are both excellent programs to use for image manipulation, I always used to use them before I got Elements and Paint Shop Pro. I used to do a lot of photography so the PSP and Elements made sense. I used to shoot RAW files then take them through the Canon software and then Elements. I was doing a lot of HDR processing and without shelling out for the software it was difficult to say the least.
There is some good discussion in this thread but my original post was about linking pictures from other sites and them being larger then my screen and a solution to the problem
Bort, what browser/OS are you using?
In Firefox, really large images are usually scaled to the window size by default.
You could make a custom setting for viewing hotlinked images with Stylish or Greasemonkey. If you use Opera I think it’s just a case of putting the css file into the user profile folder (I can’t remember exactly where).
Firefox, this thread was inspired by a current cat giveaway thread which has lots of great cat pictures (some very impressive ones actually) but has lots of giant pics that don’t need to be that way
I’d like to see anytime you post a pic the software automatically has a 75% max filled in (but up to 75% programmed into it so if your pic is smaller it displays like it does now, and if its over 75% it gets shrunk), but with the percent being changeable if desired
I may have missed the thread you are referring to. Is this for all images inserted into posts or for images that are linked to open in a new window, like this link?
your link works fine, it resizes to screen, unfortunately it appears you did miss the thread 
Sorry, Bort, but technically all pictures posted here are cross-linked, it just seems the ones you’re talking about are posted by someone other than yourself. Am I right?
It would seem that if you link a smaller picture, just don’t put anything in the size box.
E.g. here’s one at 320x200:
No relative or absolute width entered at all.
Here’s a bigger one, with 75% as the Relative Width:
Both have the picture’s own URL as the “(OPTIONAL) Link to URL” so you can click them open in a new window.
So now I’m not sure I understand the problem anymore…
I think he’s saying that if you post a picture that is 320x200 here on BLR and you set the width to 100%, then the scaled up picture will look hideous.
There’s a similar problem where if you post a large resolution picture and don’t set it to anything, it will overflow the post. And if you are looking at it on a mobile device, it would look even more hideous.
Problem is simple, you are correct all pictures are linked, so if you have a small image, it works fine, but some people post large images that are larger then the screen, so you have to scroll to see the whole thing because they don’t realize they should use the percent width option.
Visit this thread for examples
So my proposed solution is to reprogram the add image button, first to have the percentage become a maximum percentage so small pictures stay small (they get blown up now if you use a percent higher then the image already is) and big pictures get reduced to the number someone puts in. Second to have 75% automatically put in unless changed by the poster so small images will still stay small and large images get reduced to 75% of screen width thus solving the problem.
i often look at the forum on the ipad and i would really appreciate if all images (in posts and signatures) could be limited to 100%… this would keep the forum tidy even for those with low res 
Thats why i posted this thread, it would clean things up with no behaviour change needed by every user, though i would like an additional option of resized pictures being automatically linked to their full size photo but i didn’t want to be greedy
I used to do that not realizing it was a problem until someone sent me a PM, and I’ve used the width % ever since. But I agree—users will do anything possible to your system, and a technical solution is always more elegant than a process-based solution. And there will always be a user who rightfully says “well, your system shouldn’t let me do that!”
Far less wordy then my explanation, i like
I dislike people who say that, automated solutions are nice but you can’t expect people to anticipate every possible scenario out there, as long as there is a way to make suggestions or get problems resolved i would consider that reasonable.