They’re just teaser pix, to let someone view at a glance what they are without taking up half the viewscreen, more if they’d wrap.
“Oh, that looks like the box, light, and all the come-with crap… lemme look to see if there’s a clip in there…”
That kind of thing.
If it’d be beamshots where you’d want to see ’em at 100% by scrolling up/down, sure, but I can’t take beamshots to save my life. 
I hate taking photos, in general.
I have been on psych meds since 1995, and one of my meds made it so that my hands shake a little bit all the time.
I am no longer on that medication, but my hands still shake.
So I have to take 4 to 5 photos of each item to get at least one good photo.
It is really annoying.
I usually keep images to 1608 width and 99%. It’s only polite 
I just hit reverse with a post/ thread full of huge file size images, wastes my data too.
Yep.
All the images are sized to take up 95% of the frame. I’m just linking to different size images from Flickr.
These are different res. that Flikr picks for download options.
I upload to Flikr at 1280p. My uphill speed is way slower and I don’t want to grow old and die waiting on full sized images.
Then I link to that or smaller in my POSTs. Depending on how wide I want the image to be.
Usually 1024. Sometimes 800 if I’m doing part of the frame or side by side.
I’ll do another run with them all sized to say 600 pixels (?) using the BLF software.
To see how they look.
But as you say, the linked size will still control the amount of data being pulled down (I believe)
All the Best,
Jeff
640x480 cause I browse forum on smartphone and this ancient engine can’t handle mobile browsing.
Mike
I think the best solution to this - and unfortunately, it’s a lot of effort for the poster - is to use a low-ish quality “thumbnail” image that is itself a link to a high-quality version.
I got old and shaky, then came down with a nerve malady that made it worse.
Using a fast shutter speed or tripod for daylight is my trick.
Or for my indoor shots (which is mostly all I do here). I use off camera flash.
Nothing like a 1/5000 second pop to freeze things.
All the Best,
Jeff
Many photo hosting sites automatically generate links to smaller size images, so you only need to load the high quality one. For example, this is how it works with imgur:
Say this is the original:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGb.jpg
Adding ‘h’ (huge) at the end of the file name reduces the image to 1024 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbh.jpg
Adding ‘l’ (large) reduces it to 640 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbl.jpg
Adding ‘m’ (medium) reduces it to 320 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbm.jpg
Adding ‘t’ (thumb) reduces it to 160 width:
https://i.imgur.com/iHUBVGbt.jpg
1920x1200.
below 1600
On my current display, your images get scaled down to 1,245px × 831px, which means anything higher than this resolution would be a waste. Also, as others pointed out, let’s not confuse resolution with compression. You can have a 1600x1200 image that takes up less space/bandwidth than a 640x480 image if you set the compression high enough.
Excessively reducing image resolution or quality is ridiculous. Enjoying a good internet connection is very affordable nowadays, and devices are not a problem. Most of the time I browse this forum with my smartphone. However, of course I do choose how my smartphone operates and how do I want to see content or my apps to work. I always enforce zoom and use my smartphone, a 1920 × 1080 device, mostly in landscape.
Can't say I like what they have done with all newer generation smartphones, their aspect ratios are all beyond 1:2 which means their screen heights are less than half their width when in landscape, this limits their effective, useful screen height. It already is annoying to see the limited available screen height (in a 16:9 device!) when you face stupid websites with sticky bars and other unnecessary stuff on screen.
This fashion of a large screen to body ratio has lead to this shite. Screens are now more useless than ever due to the very out of proportion aspect ratios of nowadays. Bring me back 8:5 - 16:10 please…
Use fast enough shutter speed and camera/hand shake will not be an issue.
Or a tripod / variant of a tripod. Those bendy ones are particularly helpful. This one is Joby and quite expensive (depending on budget) - you can get cheaper copies like anything, but they won’t be quite so good.
They fit on to just about any object, branches etc
Is there no software of solution that could automate the creation of pictures, optimize them, uploading them, creating thumbnails and then give you the correct code? If not - why not?
Most photo hosting sites do it anyway, it’s an option - just people either don’t know, or can’t do it (don’t understand the info - is confusing if you don’t know web photo terminology)
It is described above, and also imgbb do the same thing.
The first POST linked to different sized images and were POSTed using a 95% fixed width using:
“
”
So now I’ll link to the same images. Each link is to a different sized image – as before.
The original width of the image is listed above the image.
I’m using the BLF software to set the image size to 450hx600w (or 600 max pixels).
Using this:
“
”
Once again answer 3 questions:
Where do you notice image degradation?
Where do you notice a load slowdown?
Do any of these fall outside of your column width?
All the Best,
Jeff
24mp Full Res Origional, 6000p x 4000p
2048
1600
1024
800, Max allowed at CPF
640
500
400
Also,
Are these large enough in your browser for a review?
Thanks,
Jeff
I have a Joby Gorillapod and I wish I could get the legs as straight as they are in that picture. I find it handy for quickly attaching a camera to railings and things like that, but it’s not really a substitute for a normal tripod.
I think 1024 pixels wide is a good size for most images, with a link to a larger version if possible.
The appropriate size might depend on context - if it’s a particularly nice or detailed image then perhaps a larger size is appropriate, but if there are a lot of images in a post then I would prefer smaller versions with a link to full size image.
I do most of my BLF browsing on my phone while commuting by train (at least I did pre-COVID) and I appreciate smaller file sizes in that situation. On my iPad now I think even the 640 pixel wide version looks pretty reasonable.
Cool, that’s the kind of info that helps.
Thanks,
Jeff
At those sizes anything above 640 I can barely see a difference on here. No slowdown at all. Ideal size to link your full size one off, should you want to see the full fat version.