loading pics

[red bandit]

If I go to photo bucket and resize, what size should I resize it to so it fits here, and will resizing make it load faster on here and on e-mail to a friend? Thanks Red

[malber]

Keep your images proportional, but width should be no larger than 300 px. The only reason they should be a higher resolution is if they were high quality, high detail images that require a higher resolution. For purposes of a forum smaller is better. If you feel the higher resolution is needed for the detail, include a link to the higher resolution version. If photobucket actually processes the image with the resize then it would improve pageload times and take up less bandwith in e-mails.

[John]

I usually resize mine in Microsft paint, and then send them back to 'My Photos', and then upload from there.

[TopCatGr58]

Hey Malber,

300 pixels is a bit small. With even the smaller screen resolution of 800x600 for viewing web pages, an image of 640 wide will still NOT cause side scrolling here in the Forums!

I try to use photos of that size, folks like to see SOME DETAIL, yet they are still usually under 100kbytes!
T.C.

[malber]

Originally posted by TopCatGr58
Hey Malber,

300 pixels is a bit small. With even the smaller screen resolution of 800x600 for viewing web pages, an image of 640 wide will still NOT cause side scrolling here in the Forums!

I try to use photos of that size, folks like to see SOME DETAIL, yet they are still usually under 100kbytes!
T.C.

That's assuming that everyone likes to have their browser windows maximized. And sure a 600 px image may fit in a browser window, but it will also force the height to be large as well. I'd suggest 300-400 px for pretty bike pics as a thumbnail and 500-600 px for those project pics where detail is required. It should go without saying that a 50k image is easier on a user on dialup than a 100k image, and when we're talking about threads like the bike photos thread or any of the project threads with multiple images just multiply that number. You can easily get to multiple megabyte pages.

Of course, if the administrator says it's ok....

[Jerry]

I use 432 x 320 pixels at 72 dpi resolution and they look fine posted here. (6 x 4 inches.) Microsoft screen drivers default to 96 dpi resolution (tops) and anything over that is a waste as far as display goes. (For printing you want higher resolution.) These sizes will result in photos of about 80 - 100K which load quickly even on dial-up, are quite legible, and don't take up a lot of server space.

I size the photos so 6 inches (432 pixels) is the longest side, either horizontal or vertical. Photo below (Bryce Canyon) is 432 wide by 294 tall at 72 dpi:



File size is 80.5 K. Make these photos as smaller versions of the original, if anyone wants a higher resolution / larger size photo just ask and ou can send them the original.