Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Forums, what happened?
#76
I also have Opera installed on my Windows 10 laptop, though I don't normally use it. However, I have tried it here, and at 100% Zoom the image I posted above comfortably fills the screen, as it does in Chrome.
Therein lies the rub. The platform currently being used opens and displays differently depending on lots of variables. There are images in the current competition which are HUGE however I try to view them.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
#77
Here is a huge image, 3105 x 1950 pixels, but at 770Kb it meets the forum's posting rules. Lets see what it is like. And it absolutely SWAMPS the site.
And it forces the text to run off the screen as well unless you add carriage returns!
There needs to be size constraints on images as well as data constraints. This is my new car, or more precisely, the front wheel of my new car.
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
#78
This is a Safari, normal setting, Print Screen, IE, again normal, shows a bit larger. Ed.
To each his own!
#79
I get different sized images if I use Microsoft Edge and Mozilla Firefox. However, what I have found is I get different sized images if I use my Monitor or my Laptop screen. Lily is great on my Monitor (resolution 1920 x 1080) but spills off the screen if I just use my laptop (1366 x 768)
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
#80
Windows 10 + Edge : All ok. No problems with text or Image. Image size same as Lily ( John's pic ). Laptop.
Mike.
" Your first 10,000 photographs are your worst "
Henri Cartier - Bresson.
#81
FWIW- iMac Running OS-X 10.11.6 with Chrome Version 51.0.2704.103 (64-bit) at default view

John's image in post 77 runs so far off the screen I have to zoom out to the point where I can't read the text.

Here's one of my images hosted on Flikr and linked here at 1500 x 1000 px

[Image: 28370816992_a661089e7c_o.jpg]

It fills my screen perfectly.
GrahamS
Take my advice.  I'm not using it.Wink

#82
Runs straight off the right hand side of my monitor Graham. Oh, Windows 7, Mozilla Firefox.

Regards.

Phil.
#83
Here is a 'trial', posting direct from my PC.

This is an image of my granddaughter Lucy.

Techie stuff. Nikon D300, Nikkor 50mm AF 1:1.8D, @ F2.2, 1/25sec, ISO200, Metering Mode Pattern, Auto white Balance, Available Light. Post processed in PhotoPlus X5 & Nik software. Oh, 950 pixels on the long side, PP sorts out the other side automatically.
#84
Well that seemed to work alright. What do you think?

Regards.

Phil.
#85
Lovely emotive shot and thankfully, not over-sharpened......and fits exactly on the screen / perfectly - (F/Fox, Safari, Chrome and Opera) Vista, Win7 and Win 10. So much nicer than the I-Max like images we have seen recently......but that's only MY view.

Just sayin................
#86
That's OK Phil because the image file is only 950x630.

However, Brandon, it is good to be able to post bigger dimension images like Graham's, and to expect the forum software to fit them properly in any browser window in any operating system, so that those who wish can also enjoy them at a larger size, even if they have to be opened in another window to get the full view.

Cheers.
Philip
#87
(Aug 3, 2016, 01:47)MrB Wrote:
(Aug 3, 2016, 01:34)Pandylou Wrote: Hi,

I see we have reverted to the ridiculously large images which do not fit onto a 100% Opera page. Text is also lost on the RHS.

If this is what the majority of members want, that's fine, I am nothing if not democratic !

It would however have been nice to choose which images to view at max. size instead of pushing everything (good bad and ugly) onto the screen. But I am but one voice and so willingly accept the views of the MAJORITY.

You are not alone! I am also using the Opera Browser and what you describe is exactly what I now see on my screen. I have to reduce the Browser's zoom down to 75% to see the images, at which size the text is too small for comfortable reading Sad

Philip

It seems to be a bit of a mish-mash but if you carefully select your image size, you can get a good screen fill without invoking I-Max mode......
There is a picture from Phil-J above which, for me hits all the buttons size wise - oh and without any over-zealous PP work......
#88
What's I-Max? Ta.

In the "old" days, all pics could be seen overall, software must have done a bit of this. If it could not be uploded, it was too large a file. Surely this can be incorporated in the updated version, phones or otherwise. Ed.
To each his own!
#89
(Aug 3, 2016, 05:03)EdMak Wrote: What's I-Max? Ta.

In the "old" days, all pics could be seen overall, software must have done a bit of this. If it could not be uploded, it was too large a file. Surely this can be incorporated in the updated version, phones or otherwise. Ed.

Hi Ed,

Well, either that, or, just size the image for posting in a similar fashion to the way I just have.

By the way, I keep the original JPEG, make a copy, edit that copy (PhotoPlus, Portrait Pro, Nik etc) save that copy, then use the PhotoPlus export optimiser to make another 'dedicated WebRes' copy. This way of working might not suite everybody, but, it works for me.

Best regards.

Phil.
#90
Sure worked on Lucy Phil. Cheers. Ed.
To each his own!
#91
Here's the same image at 1024 x 683px
[Image: 28370816992_299d035462_b.jpg]

And at 800 x 534px
[Image: 28370816992_299d035462_c.jpg]
GrahamS
Take my advice.  I'm not using it.Wink

#92
(Aug 3, 2016, 05:03)EdMak Wrote: What's I-Max? Ta.

In the "old" days, all pics could be seen overall, software must have done a bit of this. If it could not be uploded, it was too large a file. Surely this can be incorporated in the updated version, phones or otherwise. Ed.

I-max or IMAX is a cinematic film system which gives greatly enhanced resolution, enabling massive screens to be used to further utilise that increased resolution.

The world's largest IMAX screen is in Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia, and measures 35.7 m × 29.7 m (117 ft × 97 ft)................ !
#93
(Aug 3, 2016, 07:34)GrahamS Wrote: Here's the same image at 1024 x 683px
[Image: 28370816992_299d035462_b.jpg]

And at 800 x 534px
[Image: 28370816992_299d035462_c.jpg]

Hi Graham,

To my way of thinking, these copies are far more appropriate size wise, than the gigantic image which went before it. The 'full Monty' is 'I would suggest' probably only required (by anyone Graham, I'm not singling you out here) when printing from the full res file.

Best regards.

Phil.
#94
I will resize the images I post here to 1024 x 768. That way the image will always fit a laptop, whichever ends up the largest dimension (landscape or portrait).
Ask yourself, "What's most important for the final image?".
#95
Phil, 1500px is by no means a high-res image. It would only print to 5x3 inches. I use 1500 px only because that is the resolution size used by most professional libraries, such as here at "The Atlantic":http://www.theatlantic.com/photo/

If you go full-screen on any of their images, the res is 1500 x 1000 px compression limited to a maximum file size of 100 kb.

I wish this site worked the same.
GrahamS
Take my advice.  I'm not using it.Wink

#96
I-max or IMAX is a cinematic film system which gives greatly enhanced resolution,enabling massive screens to be used to further utilise that increased resolution.

The world's largest IMAX screen is in Darling Harbour, Sydney, Australia, and measures 35.7 m × 29.7 m (117 ft × 97 ft)................ !


How can this be used to our advantage? Sorry, a bit dim. Ed.
To each his own!
  


Possibly Related Threads…
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Methods for viewing "new" / "unread" posts on ST forums shuttertalk 3 2,860 Aug 30, 2011, 16:44
Last Post: Toad

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)

Forums, what happened?00