Image display size

[Audax67]

By way of a test, here's a pano hosted on my Pbase account and referenced via a link:



Resized the same as uploaded pics.

The culprit is the CSS, which imposes a max size on all displayed images. My original is considerably wider than the display:

https://pbase.com/johnewing/image/122488471

[thirdcrank]

I wonder if there is a new max, or can you go on attaching more forever :?:

[Mick F]

Don't tempt me!

I wonder if I could upload a whole host of our photographs in one single post?

[Jdsk]

Rotation problem when uploading from iPad:
viewtopic.php?p=1812372#p1812372

Do we still have Exif incompatibilities?

Jonathan

[plancashire]

I suspect problems may be greater with devices that rotate the screen image as the device rotates, such as an iPad. Some cameras can also rotate the image, some not - it depends on having an orientation sensor. My old Canon can, my old Nokia 515 phone can't. I fix it on the Mac in the Finder or Photos or Preview. Probably they all just change the EXIF and leave the pixels alone.

[Jdsk]

I suspect problems may be greater with devices that rotate the screen image as the device rotates, such as an iPad. Some cameras can also rotate the image, some not - it depends on having an orientation sensor. My old Canon can, my old Nokia 515 phone can't. I fix it on the Mac in the Finder or Photos or Preview. Probably they all just change the EXIF and leave the pixels alone.

Yes. On some sites the lack of tags from older devices can result in the problem not appearing. I have seen this used in a totally nonproductive blame game.

Jonathan

[CJ]

By way of a test, here's a pano hosted on my Pbase account and referenced via a link:



Resized the same as uploaded pics.

That's not the same size, it's considerably wider and must have more pixels in total than any of those uploaded, rather than linked, by MickF.

It's my observation that images linked from other sites, such as Flickr, do display bigger here. But that's no help for those without anywhere else to upload and display their images. They're stuck with the pokey little postcard-sized upload limit.

I decided to test whether downsampling to fewer pixels and more jpg compression helps at all. It doesn't

Original 1.69Mb image

Downsampled and compressed 255Kb image

Although only 255Kb, the second image is nevertheless 1024 pixels wide and at 100% displays twice as wide as the fuzzy 'postcard' above, with enough detail to read WHISKY in white on the end of the fork.

Surely 255Kb is not too big a file to display on our site without further degradation?

[admin]

The image displayed inline with the text is a "thumbnail" preview.

It's sized so it doesn't take up too much screen space, but is big enough to see what the image shows.

Click on the thumbnail image to see the full-size original.

[CJ]

The image displayed inline with the text is a "thumbnail" preview.

It's sized so it doesn't take up too much screen space, but is big enough to see what the image shows.

Click on the thumbnail image to see the full-size original.

Thanks, I've been using this forum since 2007 and never realised that.

I'm afraid the little arrow changing to a little hand was too subtle for me. If the border of the image changed to blue, or if the arrow changed to a little plus magnifying glass, like when you mouse-over images on eBay, I would've got it.

I'm biased of course, but don't think I'm especially stupid. I'll wager lots of other people using this forum don't realise those images are thumbnails that get bigger if clicked. And if they do realise that, they may nevertheless get caught by how the full-size image must be closed with the back arrow, else the whole forum is gone and one has to start all over! The way this forum opens links in the same window often catches me out. None of the other sites I regularly use work like that.