Hi,
I'm new to this site, and can't find any suggestions or rulse as to whether there are any size restrictions for images uploaded to the forum, to any of the categories, such as BW.
Martin Hack wrote:
I think it's 640 Pixels on the longer side.
There is no limit! Which is why I'm here at all! THANK GOD FOR ADMINS WHO TREAT US LIKE ADULTS!!!
OTOH if you upload to FM's storage images which are larger than 1600 then it automatically resizes it to 1600 for you - and it used to give you the click-option to zoom on those images which were resized. I'm not sure if it still does in some cases or not tho I think it does in the Buy&Sell forum which additionally has a smaller limit.
Linked to from my own servers. - 1650 x 768
In the same breath however you should use self-control! If the image doesn't need to be huge then scale it appropriately. A poll thread about 6 to 8 months ago showed that the vast majority of users here liked images at 1200px when in landscape orientation and I don't remember what it was for portrait orientation - but for me that's about 900 or 950 (longest side).
Mostly when people want to show off the resolution of a captured image here at FM they post an additional 100% crop portion of the image or imbed that crop in the image itself.
1100 x 619, Zeiss V-Sonar 100-300, GH1
905 x 509 - 100% Crop from above
Yashica ML 21mm f/3.5 - 1200 x 750 w/Embedded 100% Crop + FM Frame Feature Added (Nifty!)
Yashica ML 21mm f/3.5 - 640 x 960 w/Embedded 100% Crop (and still a tad tall imo)
Bifurcator is correct regarding image dimensions. As far as file size, there is 640kb max size. I have been thinking on revising this size upwards in the near future.
I've only bumped into that 640k limit a few times myself. Usually on images with extreme detail across the entire images area where even JPeg level 5 has difficulty cutting a 1200px image under 640k. In those cases I think I just scaled to 1,000px or something and used JPeg 6 or 7 in order to make the limit.
Well, that's interesting. In the People forum, we've been guiding ppl to go 800 pixels on the long side to keep the image within our screen, so we don't have to scroll to see the whole image. Not everyone has a large monitor that can easily view a 1600-pixel wide image.
Thanks everyone. What I seem to be getting is that there is no limit on pixel size, but there is a limit of 640k for file size. For landscape I generally aim for 900 pixels wide, staying at less than 700 pixels in height, and for portraits I aim for 700 pixels in height and less that 700 pixels in width.
I tend to size mine at around 1000 pixels, as that is the max size for a free Flickr account. On my desktop (24 inch screen) i think 1200 pixels is ok, though when i was using a smaller screen it could sometimes feel cramped. As i also use my laptop quite a lot (and many have tablets) i think 1000 pixels is a polite compromise. I do get annoyed with folk who post images so large that i need to scroll across on my 24 inch screen to see them.
I do wonder about the strict 640 pixel restriction for the Weekly and Monthly assignments. I can see how it was relevant in the days when we were on 17 and 19 inch CRT's, but it seems a bit small now. Is there any plan to change this Fred?
Yup, almost no one into photography still uses small screens. That it so 1990's...
For the vast majority of us 640 is a freaking postage stamp and 800 is still really really small - Too small to see any detail no matter what screen rez one is using.
friscoron,
1600 is the limit for FM hosted images. That doesn't mean you have to format all your images to that size. The lack of any limits for off-site images and the sizable hosted limits just means that YOU get to decide instead of being forced like a grade-schooler. Common sense still applies. As mentioned, the results from a poll taken about a year or two ago showed that out of the 1,000 or so people who participated the most desirable viewing size was 1200 in landscape orientation. There were almost no votes for anything under 1,000 so from that you can deduce that 95% or more like images somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200 pixels across in landscape.
Now if you go to a gamer site or a site like XDA then their screen grab preferences will be quite different I'm sure. But for photographers... The masses have spoken. Hehe... BTW, most browsers will allow you to size down the images with something like (Ctrl - ) and back up with (Ctrl + ) when done. So there's a solution for those few folks out there still using tiny screens.
I dig "people" photos with a little detail in them BTW:
A poll thread about 6 to 8 months ago showed that the vast majority of users here liked images at 1200px when in landscape orientation and I don't remember what it was for portrait orientation - but for me that's about 900 or 950 (longest side).
Hehe... BTW, most browsers will allow you to size down the images with something like (Ctrl - ) and back up with (Ctrl + ) when done. So there's a solution for those few folks out there still using tiny screens.
