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.
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.
Noticeable improvement at 1600, not so much past that.
Download speed is not a concern for me at all.
Some people do not have access to a good internet connection, no matter how much money they have.
I have satellite internet, which is the worst kind of broadband available, and sometimes my internet chokes on multi-megabyte images.
Sadly, satellite internet is my best option available.
The LT1 shot I picked because it needs a lot of detail to look good.
Here are some examples of closeups that do not need the same level of detail.
How do these look to you as far a clarity?
And again tell us what you are browsing on.
End Cap. One is an 800p link. The Max size allowed at CPF.
The other is a 1600p link.
Can you see a difference?
- 
Instructions: 1024p Link. What I often use for not full width images.
Look sharp to you?
All the Best,
Jeff
And one last question.
How fast is your download and upload speed?
Test it at:
Use the ones that Barukuti suggests below.
Thanks again,
Jeff
I am right now browsing with Android Opera Beta 59.0.2926.59042 but, tell us what's the point in asking please.
Of course I can see a difference, mainly if I download or open the images in new browser windows (a very likely thing for me).
Worst speed test I've ever seen. It tries to connect me to a nearby server, which is lame, and uses JavaShite.
For proper speed testing sites, also offering advanced test configuration, I recommend the following:
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