What are the image-size restrictions on SF?
 

So, recently I had some images removed because they were "too big." However, I had to search these pages to find any reference to what is an acceptible size by pixels (no information on file-size limits).

My suggestion would be for either a pinned thread just on what is allowed for image sizes (and that all admin/mods are aware of those same limits) or that y'all modify the software here to automatically resize all images to whatever y'all deem "just right" :smile:

The following is the sole reference I found in this section of the site:


Any help would be greatly appreciated, if only to avoid having images deleted without prior notice :smile:

Hi, Until an Admin sees this...Rule of Thumb: if it is enormous...like,
distorting the entire page...it's too big!...Esp now, when the Admin is even asking to
please, reduce the size of the quote boxes to a couple sentences.
I betcha at the beginning when the Rules were made 2006, and Matt was alive...size didn't matter.

And, ps, you're not doing anything bad :tongue: ...it's just the way this forum is right now.
I love seeing huge chocolate cakes!

The thing is, "enormous" doesn't help for telling me what is too big. My computer monitor is 27 inches. The images I posted were small on its screen. They also weren't truly enormous because on this screen that would have been if I had used their original sizes which measured 4,000 by 3,000 in pixels (I don't know what that is in inches or centimetres; photographs are generally only measured in pixels).

I guess until an admin weighs in with something official, I'll use the image-size I discovered in that quoted post. The edited and re-posted image I put into the message should have been fine as its dimensions were 667 x 500 pixels.

So you're page was not distorted? What I mean is - you didn't have to scroll
left and right to see each post on that page cuz of the picture or chart?
(Btw, it's not just me...others have commented in the past.)
Thanks

Rule of thumb: a picture shouldn't be wider than 1/4 to 1/3 of your screen width. If it needs to be bigger to show details, post a link to a bigger size. Use common-sense.

Again, that's not a good enough guide. My monitor is 27 inches in the diagonal (that's 68.6 cm for metric). I need actual numbers to know what is too big for everyone else.

Also, on what kind of device is the size an issue? I can see it being a problem on a phone, but not a tablet and above. 667 x 500 pixels isn't too big for even the smallest of tablets out there.

You make it harder than it is ... Look around to what others do on this site. Try your 667x500; that seems okay.

Except that I did just that and it also got deleted.

I'm not making it hard. I'm requesting that it be an exact amount. That's not hard. That's what is done for the avatar image we all use. The site has a set limit on size, whether by pixels or by file-size.

In fact, here's the text straight from that part of your control panel for editing your avatar image:


The same could be set for images used throughout the site. But, I don't know programming and don't know the extent of the work needed to do that, only that it can be done.

A "rule of thumb" or "use common sense" isn't good enough. As I have said, I use a big monitor (screen resolution set to 1920x1080 pixels). Technically, by today's standards, it's a "medium" sized screen. I know plenty of photographers, gamers, and graphic artists who use much larger screens. That "rule of thumb" of sizing an image to 1/4 or 1/3 of the screen size would still be too large for the current objection to "huge" images.

Not even in the slightest.

If you read what I've posted here, you'll see that there's no way the images I originally posted would have been too large for this screen. If they had, I would have resized them immediately.

I am curious to know what size screen you're using or that of the ones commenting on this issue. Because it does seem to me like we need a set guideline of exact resolution numbers allowed in order to resolve this issue. The only alternative is that I just take a chance on losing images again from my posts until at some point, through trial and error (mostly error) I determine what size is just right for the majority :wink:

Hi, let's just say many of us are not on 27'' screens. :)
Lynn was busy today ...she'll comment when she can.
I got nothin'.