Image size

[pesto]

It has been a long time since I have posted an image here and do not recall the sizing and formating recomendations, could someone please help me out?

Thank you,

Douglas

 

[sbjornda]

I would like to know as well. I'm surprised there isn't a "sticky" thread about this.

 

[pegelli]

I forgot if the size limit is MB's or pixel size. The largest I usually post are ~1800 pix long size around 1 MB and these show without any problem. I have seen other people post larger, so I'm probably not close to the limit.

 

[routlaw]

And still no official answer to this? Just had one image declined due to its size @ 2500 pixels on the long dimension.

 

[jng]

And still no official answer to this? Just had one image declined due to its size @ 2500 pixels on the long dimension.

If I recall correctly, keeping the image size < 1 Mb and/or < 1024 pixels on a side seemed to work pretty reliably for me in the past. More recently I've side-stepped the issue by linking to my images on Flickr, but I recognize that this won't work for everyone. Hope this helps.

John

 

[drevil]

I have no official answer but when you upload a file that is "too large" you get the message that the file is too large, i think its limited in the data size, not by the dimensions of the image.i uploaded a file that was 5000px on the long side and no issue.
a 7500px file that was 2mb failed
so keep the file size below 1mb and you should be fine

 

[lookbook]

And still no official answer to this? Just had one image declined due to its size @ 2500 pixels on the long dimension.

I would like to know as well. I'm surprised there isn't a "sticky" thread about this.

.. the size of the image is irrelevant if it is inserted via a link from a site like Flickr.

9000 × 7364​

 

[PeterA]

@lookbook - the problem with this approach is (for example) I cant actually see all your photograph above without scrolling on a 27 inch apple 5k retina screen - which detracts from your presentation and my enjoyment.

 

[pegelli]

@PeterA , that's strange. On my computer (W11, Firefox) when lookbook's image is showing on the website it is "scaled" so it shows the full width. Then clicking on it I see the photo in a black frame, again "scaled" so I see the full image. Only when clicking the + magnifying glass I see only part of the image and need to scroll to see other parts.

 

[Arjuna]

pegelli's observation of the scaling seems to be correct, which suggests that PeterA has a browser window that is full screen, or close. On my 4.5K iMac, with a window that is full height but about 65% of screen width, the whole of lookbook's image shows comfortably. If I stretch the window to full width, it becomes slightly too tall. I think that the scaling is to the width of the browser window, as pegelli says. When a post contains a high resolution image in portrait format, I have to scroll to see all parts of it. Also, on a somewhat mediocre internet connection, like mine, these very high resolution images take some time to load (and scale). Given that the vertical resolution of 5K is ~2880 pixels, linking to extremely high resolution images seems a bit excessive, in my opinion.

 

[Knorp]

@PeterA , that's strange. On my computer (W11, Firefox) when lookbook's image is showing on the website it is "scaled" so it shows the full width. Then clicking on it I see the photo in a black frame, again "scaled" so I see the full image. Only when clicking the + magnifying glass I see only part of the image and need to scroll to see other parts.

Idem - Lookbook's image works perfectly well on my system. No complaints here !

 

[PeterA]

Well one learns something every day ! I always have a 'full width' browser window open and wasnt aware thayt if I click on an image it will be able to viewed as a whole without having to scroll - thanks peoples. Aslo I might give Firefox a try as I am using google browser.