Picture size for posting

Why you should keep to Dyxum’s suggested picture sizes

In our rules and guidelines we suggest that members only post pictures that are 1024 pixels wide, or 960 pixels high. We have noticed in recent months that more and more people are posting images that are much bigger than this, and are relying on the forum software to re-size their images to fit. The idea of this message is to explain why we would like people to keep to the posting sizes suggested, despite the ability of the forum software to display large images to fit normal monitor sizes…

Browser incompatibilities

Although the forum scripts resize overlarge pictures, this feature may not work with all browsers , so some members may not see your pictures as you intend.

Slow connections

Even if your image is displayed at a reasonable size in the browser of a viewer, the whole full-size picture is being transferred down the line – this may not be noticeable if you are working on high speed broadband, but for users on slower lines or WiFi it can make viewing a picture post very difficult.

Subscriptions

A number of members subscribe to picture threads so that they get an email sent through with any new postings – the resizing does not work with most email packages, so your image will appear in their email at full size.

DPCs and exhibitions

Our team members spend quite a bit of time dealing with preparation for exhibitions and voting threads for DPCs, the scripts they use to compile these postings do not benefit from resizing, which makes the whole process much more labour intensive. We would rather not lose great pictures from exhibitions or DPC voting lists just because the images are too big for us to work with.

But it is not just for the comfort of other Dyxum members that we think you should keep within the guidelines - there are particular reasons why it is not in members' interests to just leave resizing of their pictures to the forum app:

Sharpening

To get the optimum benefit from sharpening you should be applying the sharpening at the resolution the image will be viewed at (ie you sharpen differently for something to be viewed on a monitor than you would for a print). If you sharpen for a higher resolution and then the forum software resizes, the benefits of your sharpening will be lost.

Copyright

If you post at high resolutions, your images can be downloaded and pirated at that resolution – we know a lot of people spend time applying watermarks to their images, but effectively posting a 600x900 image means that any pirate is only going to have a low resolution copy that they will not be able to do much with practically – however, if they have a 4000x6000 image they have something that they can pass off as their own (and something it is worth spending time removing a watermark from).

For the above reasons we would ask all members to take the time to resize their images so they are at or below the suggested resolutions.
We are also considering commissioning some knowledge-base articles on preparing images for web display and would be grateful for any volunteers to contribute text or useful links to guides elsewhere on the internet.

Thanks Bob for the summary.

Thanks Sashi.

BTW, we have a thread describing how to post pictures from various sites, including methods of choosing the size of the photo to post.

A recent thread about 4k TVs, and in particular this post by Cliff leads me to question whether these guidelines are now archaic and should be updated.

1. In these days of fast internet, hardly anyone nowadays relies on a basic slow telephone-line internet.

2. Most enthusiast photographers (eg those on this forum) will show pictures on a monitor or TV with a lot more than 1024 pixels

3. Restricting images to the quote sizes hides much of the detail in the images that we like to comment on.

4. Most people get around this by linking to another website where full-size (or at least larger) images *can* be displayed, making a nonsense of the restriction.

5. We can still use thumbnails or small sizes when appropropriate.

6. It's not even as if Dyxum are trying to save space on their own servers, because they don't host images . . .

Miranda F wrote: A recent thread about 4k TVs, and in particular this post by Cliff leads me to question whether these guidelines are now archaic and should be updated. 1. In these days of fast internet, hardly anyone nowadays relies on a basic slow telephone-line internet.

Why would you think that hardly anyone relies on a basic slow telephone line internet these days? Are you basing that on what you see in the UK or USA or modern Europe? There are many millions of internet users who are still using telephone line internet. Unlike most 1st world countries, fast unrestricted fibre internet is very expensive on a continent like Africa. For many millions of African internet users, telephone line internet is still the only viable option.

Edited by ABDurbs - 13 December 2017 at 12:52

I occasionally find the compression a tad annoying when posting vertical images, but I'm aware of it so I just try to re-size them when possible. Overall I think the limitations work best to serve all types of users. I can still post around 1000px wide which reveals plenty of details, assuming I am resizing and sharpening for web presentation. If you ever feel like you can't see enough detail at this size, then it's probably poor post production or just not a great photo.

If there is a particular way I wish to present a set of images, or if I wish to present them larger for some reason, I do often just link to a web page on my site. As everyone is hosting off dyxum, I think this is probably quite easy even if you don't own your own website.

I occasionally post on another website, FredMiranda, and it is somewhat easier to post as you can just drop the .jpeg url, however, people do post ENORMOUS photos which can result in the dreaded HORIZONTAL SCROLL OF DOOM quite often. If I just want to check in on my phone to clarify some info for example when researching, it can make the process a bit tedious.

I think it works pretty well here overall.

I think what appeals to me on here is the fact that there is a consistent (well, nearly always consistent) image size for everyone; yes, there are potentially some limitations but, on the whole, I know that if I am looking at this on my Mac at home, my laptop at work (occasionally... ; honest) or a tablet device it is likely that I will see the whole image without, as Richard so succinctly put it, THE HORIZONTAL SCROLLBAR OF DOOM. And another thought on that last comment - just think how much more difficult it would make the AMAE's roles if they had to scroll through an image to form an opinion on someone's work?I'm not sure too many people would volunteer, nor would there likely be as many comments as we get now?

No - happy to maintain the status quo as far as image size is concerned at the moment.

Best regards, Neil.