Question about image size

[Fearless Weeder]

Everyone give it a spin and see if what we've done doesn't address many concerns.

We think everyone will be pleased.

[swamp thing]

Testing... a funny, short, late-blooming joepye that grew this year.

I like it! I wonder how it works for the dial-up folks.

[Equilibrium]

I'm sure everyone will be shocked but I'm testing a snag photo.

[jpdenk]

Here's a recent Praying Mantis shot.

John

[Fearless Weeder]

Thank you swamp thing, Equilibrium, and jpdenk.

We may need to fine tune the configuration for vertical images. What do you think?

swamp thing
1000px × 750px
189.52 KB (194069 bytes)

Equilibrium
1000px × 798px
168.79 KB (172840 bytes)

jpdenk
718px × 1000px
71.07 KB (72775 bytes)

[jpdenk]

Originally Posted by Fearless Weeder

Thank you swamp thing, Equilibrium, and jpdenk.

We may need to fine tune the configuration for vertical images. What do you think?

swamp thing
1000px × 750px
189.52 KB (194069 bytes)

Equilibrium
1000px × 798px
168.79 KB (172840 bytes)

jpdenk
718px × 1000px
71.07 KB (72775 bytes)

Looks like it's knocking resolution down to no more than 1,000 pixels on the long side. My image was 1,024 x 800.

John

[Fearless Weeder]

The current settings are automated to negate any need for members wanting to resize images to purchase or install free products. We chose to take the hit in the pocket by replacing the application that was managing our images. We're pleased with the results so far.

Is the current image size acceptable to you as is or do you feel it needs to be adjusted? We would be happy to incur the expense of adjusting the application if members believe it would be helpful. Vertical images are challenging.

[jpdenk]

While I always like to see higher-res images, we do need to be practical. As far as I can see, this new system should suffice. I guess the best way to proceed is try it and see how people like it. I post photos on the TrekNature site too, image size there is restricted to 800 pixels on the long side, and no larger than 300 KB, and it seems to work well. While most folks have moved up to broadband connections, there are still significant numbers of folks who are still on dial-up, so big files will be frustrating for them, to say the least.

John

[Fearless Weeder]

We have done our best to meet the needs of the community as a whole and look to all members for feedback on our new image management system.

Factors that helped us identify a need for change-
* dial up users registered
* members preferring high resolution images
* first time forum users registered
* # of members struggling to learn how to use WG's existing features
* # of members struggling to use third party software
* the need to provide the highest resolution image possible to better enable members to assist others with the identification of plants and animals.

Attempting to find that happy median has proven to be challenging. We hope we are that much closer to being successful with the recent changes.

[Equilibrium]

The Praying Mantis is excellent. I'm happy with what you gave us. This is much better than what it was a few days ago and much better than what it was when I first started but whatever everyone decides is fine with me. I'm totally happy I don't have to pay a host site and can post direct and I'm totally happy I don't have to cut and paste links to make thumbnails. I know I don't like it when I go to sites where you have to chase the photos off the screen to see them. That never happened because of the auto thumbnails here.