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.
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.
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.
Honestly speaking, image weight is what really matters. However, I do not think you need to sacrifice image quality the way you are doing it. Going back to the opening post here, at the end of it jeff51 posted an image with a whopping ≈24.16MP and 29.14MiB of weight. Compared to its scaled down previous version of ≈2.8MP (2048 × 1367) and just 510.3KiB, the difference is enormous.
I think you should set the minimum image quality you aim to show, and abide to it. A satisfactory balance of resolution, quality and weight can always be found. I do not meant to say that close to 3MP and barely above 500KB of wheight isn't enough, it can be pretty satisfactory, but spending a few MB in an image could also be pretty acceptable. The pictures I usually take with my smartphone range between 9 to 13MP and often weigh under 2MB, for example.
In my opinion the overall quality of an internet connection is responsibility of the provider “no matter what”, as they're responsible for negotiating the quality of all the sub-networks the traffic has to go through.
All three pics look good on my 1920p wide windows laptop and my 13” android.
I think different platforms may interpolate the images differently. Or the pixel size/density on the device may be making a difference.
I’d really like to hear from more Mac users, as the one comment seems to indicate that perhaps on a Mac, the smaller images look better than on a windows platform.
My 13” android tablet seems to give more apparent sharpness than my Windows laptop.
But I really should have asked as the second part, what is the display resolution of your screen?
And perhaps more important, what is the width of the browsing window you use to look at the BLF?
For example at home, I mostly use a full width 1920x1080 window, so the actual useful pixels is that, minus the adds at the side.
On the Tablet, I usually zoom in so the POST is the full width of the screen as held vertically.
At work, I have a three screen setup. And usually the browsing window takes up maybe 1/2 or a bit more of a 4K screen.
BTW, your comments on image res were informative.
Thanks again.
All the Bet,
Jeff
Honestly, what matters the most is actually how much you can compress down your image using various codecs.
Something like uncompressed PNGs will not do all that well, but compressed with something like ECT will squeeze some nice efficiency out of an image. This is lossless compression.
Then you have WebP, which has 3 modes: lossless, near-lossless, and lossy. The lossless mode is currently the best all around lossless image codec, near-lossless is your best bet for optimal quality at a nicely reduced file size vs lossless, and lossy is lossy of course.
You then have JPEG too, which can be compressed nicely using something like Mass Image Compressor(based on libjpeg turbo) or Pingo(all around closed source GUI based image compressor).