Picture Posting

Most cameras take pix in landscape layout, wider than high. This forum is set up for portrait layout: higher than wide, which requires cropping of most pix to get them down to 640 width.Why is that? Other Forums have memory size limits of 100K or 200K, but not pixel size, so portrait or landscape doesn’t matter.

Not a helpful answer but I haven’t a clue, I can’t figure out how to post a photo at all. Someone told me it has to be done via piccasa or flickr but I refuse to have anything to do with those two websites.

Max width without cut off is 575px wide and up to 800px high. This ensures that things load quickly. If you want to share high res pics, post a low res preview and link to original. Anything wider than 575px gets cut off by the forum layout.

But why is it 800 high and 575 wide? That’s Portrait layout, and I’m not even sure that’s standard proportion.Normal size for the web is 480 high and 640 wide. That’s the proportion pix come out of your camera unless you hold it sideways, and Pic resizing programs shrink only to 640 wide. That’s part of why people have trouble posting pix here.It’s not a question of load time, but layout. If the limits were 575 high and 800 wide, or 480/640 or 600/800 life would be simpler, and require less scrolling to see the whole pic.GB

Just set the width to 575px and let the height be whatever is proportionate. 600px with a slight cut off is fine just as well. These are simply the upper limits.

marie83 wrote:Someone told me it has to be done via piccasa or flickr but I refuse to have anything to do with those two websites.No, you can use any image-hosting site to post pictures on the internet. I use Tinypic but there’s also Photobucket and many others. Graybeard wrote:Pic resizing programs shrink only to 640 wide.I have a free program called PhotoScape that does all kinds of stuff, including shrinking. I’ve shrunk a desktop wallpaper to 100 pix square with it. I highly recommend it if you ever need to do simple photo editing!

What I’m reading here are workarounds, not the reason for the odd limits.GB

I didn’t realize they were odd limits. I just follow the rules and don’t ask questions I’m not sure why this forum is different. Michael may not be able to change the limits.

These aren’t work arounds. These are the constraints of the forum layout. Large images load slowly. The forum is primarily meant for discussion. Pictures are supplementary. Large pics can always be linked. Small pics load quicker and give a good enough idea of what it’s about. This is all with good reason. No reason to question or change it. The forum serves a specific purpose and that is discussion of parrots.

Sorry, but somehow I’m not communicating. I realize this may come across as complaining, but it’s really an attempt at improving the experience here. Hope it isn’t taken personally.640 width by 480 height is a standard. It takes less space/memory/bandwidth than the present 575 width by 800 height. The Microsoft (free) picture resizer has these basic choices:0 Small (fits a 640 x 480 screen)0 Medium (fits an 800 x 600 screen)0 Large (fits a 1024 x 768 screen)0 Handheld (fits a 240 x 320 screen)Notice that’s a 4:3 ratio for the first three.Only if aimed primarily at handheld devices does portrait layout make sense. If the goal is to limit pic posting, then it’s working. GB