Jumping off RCs question about how many pictures should a review have.
And G0OSE’s comment about too large an image size, sucking up time and bandwidth.
Over at CPF, images are not to exceed 800 pixels max.
Is that too small?
Not everyone has 200mbs downloads…
A thread that takes forever to load, better have something I really want to see to put up with huge images.
1600 is the sweetspot between quality and loading time for me. Anything else is better viewed off site imo due to loading times - remember a lot of people use phones.
macbook pro 17”, they all look the same quality image to me, and fit within the width of the post (image is about 5x7”). This was fixed by Barkuti’s effort some time ago.
We are talking about image quality vs load time, not fit ( I believe Jeff? ). They all fit as he has limited the display size.
In a nutshell the images above all sized the same, after 1600 there is no benefit unless you full size it, by downloading, or viewing off site (right click - view image).
My monitor is 2560x1440. I think the 1024 image is acceptable and 1600 is the sweet spot.
Personally I’d prefer smaller thumbnails that just link to the full image. I don’t want to be loading a crap ton of images when I open a thread but I also don’t want a thread without images. Thumbnails give me a good idea of which images I want to see and then I can choose to open just those in full size.
Of course, the issue IS it makes no difference if you store it off site and still use the full size image, but resize (on here) limited - it STILL loads in the WHOLE full size image - this, and this alone is the issue.
To combat it you need to resize the image on your pc and post THAT on here, then LINK it to the FULL size image in off site in storage - then this site doesn’t have to load in the huge size.
Sadly that means hosting 2 versions - 1 to view here, and another, different URL for the full fat one.
Any pages that take a long time to load (because of pix), I just back out and don’t bother reading anything. I hate having a page pinwheeling forever while huge pic after huge pic loads and keeps shifting the display so you can’t even f’n read a word before it shifts the viewscreen again.
Posting a fullsize 24Mpx pic but doing the whole “width=50%” thing does not help, as it’s still loading the huge honkin’ pic anyway.
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
27” 1920x1080 - though I occasionally view things on my second monitor, a 21” 1080P that is portrait style.
1600 is the first (smallest?) of your images that doesn’t look like steaming hot garbage to me.
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:
