The GetDPI Photography Forum
Great to see you here. Join our insightful photographic forum today and start tapping into a huge wealth of photographic knowledge. Completing our simple registration process will allow you to gain access to exclusive content, add your own topics and posts, share your work and connect with other members through your own private inbox! And don’t forget to say hi!
Image size
- Thread starter pesto
- Start date
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
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
a 7500px file that was 2mb failed
so keep the file size below 1mb and you should be fine
lookbook
Well-known member
.. the size of the image is irrelevant if it is inserted via a link from a site like Flickr.
9000 × 7364
pegelli
Well-known member
@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
Active member
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
Well-known member
Idem - Lookbook's image works perfectly well on my system. No complaints here !
PeterA
Well-known member
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.
Lorenz(X)
Well-known member
I would like to bring this up again, because it kind of bothers me not to know what is actually possible. This is a photo forum and I think it would be nice to be able to upload images that do not have to be crippled down so much. Some pictures need the information to really shine! Thats why a lot of us are using big sensors with 16 bit colours..
If bigger is not possible, then knowing the limiting factor and what the limit is would be nice.
If bigger is not possible, then knowing the limiting factor and what the limit is would be nice.
darr
Well-known member
I don’t have any trouble sharing images here. I’m not sure what “bigger” means to you, but I typically limit my images to about 2600 px on the long side for horizontals and around 750 px for verticals.
My main concern is that the image fits the page comfortably. For example, a vertical image posted at 2600 px would dominate the forum page and, to my eye, look a bit obnoxious.
There may also be differences in how images display depending on whether they’re uploaded through the site’s gallery or linked from an external host, which is what I usually do.
My main concern is that the image fits the page comfortably. For example, a vertical image posted at 2600 px would dominate the forum page and, to my eye, look a bit obnoxious.
There may also be differences in how images display depending on whether they’re uploaded through the site’s gallery or linked from an external host, which is what I usually do.
Godfrey
Well-known member
Personally, I find it very annoying when huge size photographs are posted to threads. It makes looking at the thread a bit of a PITA as I'm always up- and down-scaling the browser view so I can see the full photo and still read text on the thread. And such large photos choke the thread, increasing load time.
I don't really care what limits the GetDPI server has. I post my photos to a web server (flickr.com in my case) usually at about 2400-2800 pixels on the long edge, and then post them here (and on other forums) with about a 1600 pixel longest edge so that it can be viewed easily without scaling on most modern displays and most current browsers. For verticals, I usually limit the size to post to about 1024 pixels so that they fit on the screen without scrolling.. One click on the photo nets a display directly on Flickr where you can choose to see the largest resolution image I've posted any time you want. Doing it this way keeps the threads from being cluttered up too much, keeps load times reasonable, and allows all the options for many people to share photos with courtesy and ease.
BTW, the 9000 × 7364 is autoscaled in Safari by default so that it appears in the 100% browser window on my 27" 5000K display at this size (a screen grab scaled to 1600 pixels and stored as JPEG):
I normally have my browser view scaled to 125% or so in order to make the text more readable, as even with this autoscaling such a large photo is not ideal for thread posting.
G
I don't really care what limits the GetDPI server has. I post my photos to a web server (flickr.com in my case) usually at about 2400-2800 pixels on the long edge, and then post them here (and on other forums) with about a 1600 pixel longest edge so that it can be viewed easily without scaling on most modern displays and most current browsers. For verticals, I usually limit the size to post to about 1024 pixels so that they fit on the screen without scrolling.. One click on the photo nets a display directly on Flickr where you can choose to see the largest resolution image I've posted any time you want. Doing it this way keeps the threads from being cluttered up too much, keeps load times reasonable, and allows all the options for many people to share photos with courtesy and ease.
BTW, the 9000 × 7364 is autoscaled in Safari by default so that it appears in the 100% browser window on my 27" 5000K display at this size (a screen grab scaled to 1600 pixels and stored as JPEG):
I normally have my browser view scaled to 125% or so in order to make the text more readable, as even with this autoscaling such a large photo is not ideal for thread posting.
G
Godfrey
Well-known member
Oh yes: As another point of information, the full screen grab of the photo above landed on my desktop as a 4064x2908 .PNG file roughly 4.8 MB in size. I attempted to post it here directly and the GetDPI server came back with a complaint that it was too large to handle. Scaling it to 1600 on the long edge reduced it to 1600x1139 pixels in size, stored as JPEG reduced the file size to 209 KB with little noticeable loss in quality on my display.
My opinion is, basically, if you want space filling photographs that fill the entire computer screen or wall in your living room, print them on paper or canvas, and hang them.
What we share on a computer screen should only ever be a representation of those huge prints, expressly for the purpose of sharing the ideas and capabilities, and use in conversation...
G
My opinion is, basically, if you want space filling photographs that fill the entire computer screen or wall in your living room, print them on paper or canvas, and hang them.
What we share on a computer screen should only ever be a representation of those huge prints, expressly for the purpose of sharing the ideas and capabilities, and use in conversation...G
Lorenz(X)
Well-known member
I would prefer not having to use an external hoster, and it would be nice to know wich export setting to use for the best possible result here, if bigger is not possible or wanted. I look at the pics here with the built in media viewer, and I also zoom in quite regularly, because getting those pics as a print on my wall is, well, a bit much to ask.. right?
By the way Darlene, I made the mistake of showing pics in portrait orientation as full image here, and I realized that it is really not ideal, so I editet the posts to show a thumbnail instead.
I just think it would be nice to show and look at pics here on a photo forum in a quality that shows an "adequate representation" of the original. A lot of the pics here are worth it. But I can live with the situation as it is of course.
By the way Darlene, I made the mistake of showing pics in portrait orientation as full image here, and I realized that it is really not ideal, so I editet the posts to show a thumbnail instead.
I just think it would be nice to show and look at pics here on a photo forum in a quality that shows an "adequate representation" of the original. A lot of the pics here are worth it. But I can live with the situation as it is of course.
Last edited:
darr
Well-known member
@Lorenz(X) :
I understand your passion for optimal image display, but this is the internet—and unfortunately, there are dishonest people who copy work and claim it as their own. Because of that, I always include a © (copyright), even though it could technically be cropped out. More importantly, retaining the RAW file protects me if I ever have to prove ownership in a legal setting.
This is a great forum, but we’ve had our share of problems with scammers. The internet, frankly, is a cesspool of bots and bad actors looking to profit off others in one way or another. For that reason, I would never post images large enough to be printed, nor would I share RAW files—unless we’re discussing something disposable, such as brick-wall tests.
The advantage of hosting images on my own site is ownership and control over what I post. For example, if I ever decide to pack it in and leave GetDPI, I can easily delete all the files linked here. I don’t know what this site charges for a gallery, but since I host my own site, the cost to me is minimal.
I understand your passion for optimal image display, but this is the internet—and unfortunately, there are dishonest people who copy work and claim it as their own. Because of that, I always include a © (copyright), even though it could technically be cropped out. More importantly, retaining the RAW file protects me if I ever have to prove ownership in a legal setting.
This is a great forum, but we’ve had our share of problems with scammers. The internet, frankly, is a cesspool of bots and bad actors looking to profit off others in one way or another. For that reason, I would never post images large enough to be printed, nor would I share RAW files—unless we’re discussing something disposable, such as brick-wall tests.
The advantage of hosting images on my own site is ownership and control over what I post. For example, if I ever decide to pack it in and leave GetDPI, I can easily delete all the files linked here. I don’t know what this site charges for a gallery, but since I host my own site, the cost to me is minimal.
Lorenz(X)
Well-known member
And I do understand your point of view Darlene. Upping the possible filesize here on the platform wouldn´t change anything in regards to using an external hoster. Using full resolution images or even RAW files was never my intention.
Anyway, I will set my export settings for getDPI to a resolution that will work with all pictures.
Anyway, I will set my export settings for getDPI to a resolution that will work with all pictures.
Indeed you can, and do - even without 'leaving getDPI'
But doing so leaves a distinctly unappealing placeholder in the thread. Multiply that as time progresses and others do likewise and it detracts from the viewing experience.
It would take more time, but surely better to delete the post in its entirety ?
