Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: December 23, 2024, 1:01 pm

Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Possibly restricting photo sizes?
#21
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
(November 4, 2018 at 1:33 pm)Jörmungandr Wrote:
(November 4, 2018 at 1:24 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: I see imgfit as a good solution for images that are wider than your device's image resolution (1366 pixels, in my case). Not for small ones that are likely to cause pixelation, then you just use "img".

Small according to what?  My screen size, your iphone screen, my tablet screen, whose screen is your advice tailored to?

My screen resolution is 1900x1080 -- I don't see images that are wider than my device's image resolution very often.  I don't think you're thinking about anyone's situation but your own.  You aren't the only one using the forum, you know.  If imgfit shrunk images but didn't enlarge them, then you'd have a point.  But it doesn't.

I'm just going by my own experience. Images smaller than that browser resolution (or, indeed, ones that the browser doesn't resize to fit the screen and ask you to click again to see it at full size) just don't need it. There's just no point. I just work under the two-sizes fits all approach, where large images use imgfit, and smaller images use img. If you're looking for a one-size approach, I simply don't see the point, unless you want needlessly-stretched-out images or images that are big enough they fuck with the rest of the thread.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.

[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]

I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Reply
#22
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
(November 4, 2018 at 10:24 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: How big do you think the limit should be, and why?



(November 4, 2018 at 6:19 am)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Software should have an "automatic resize" option that allows the reader to view the original.

This might be problematic as the forum software allows the poster to specify resizing of the image when they post it.  Some of the images I've resized are several thousand pixels wide/high.

As a general rule, I'm against having the forum resize images to a standard size.  It removes the editorial control I have.  I post large pics for some things, small pics for others.  There's usually a reason behind it.

Not to mention that some members have visual impairments and need those larger size options. It wouldn't be fair to them to restrict the sizes.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand. 
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work.  If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now.  Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Reply
#23
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
Sizes are restricted, the original is still available on the forum. The 3200x2400 image of the route of the Nagumo Kido Butai I made this morning would fit into the post window of the person looking at that picture if I used imgfit. BUT they could view the original size if they prefered. I checked the image I mentioned above on another forum without using the imgfit tags and you can see Siberia. Most of Siberia. Mostly.
Reply
#24
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
I resize my images manually if necessary. Select view source, after img type =400x300 (example)

400 is width, 300 is height.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply
#25
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
(November 4, 2018 at 4:39 pm)wyzas Wrote: I resize my images manually if necessary. Select view source, after img type =400x300 (example)

400 is width, 300 is height.
How did you choose that size?
Reply
#26
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
In the box that pops up when you click on the pic icon to post a pic. It gives you the option to manually enter in height and width.
Disclaimer: I am only responsible for what I say, not what you choose to understand. 
(November 14, 2018 at 8:57 pm)The Valkyrie Wrote: Have a good day at work.  If we ever meet in a professional setting, let me answer your question now.  Yes, I DO want fries with that.
Reply
#27
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
[Image: 1024px-Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg]

Well, it worked.

And for those of us at home, here's what I got when I decided to reduce it to a width of 400 pixels:


Code:
[img=400x218]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg/1024px-Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg[/img]
The height of 218 pixels was automatically chosen by math to keep up the proportions.

Just click the "insert an image" post and reduce it to whatever width you want. If you don't want to just use the "imgfit" for larger images and "img" for smaller ones, that's it.

(November 4, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Joods Wrote: In the box that pops up when you click on the pic icon to post a pic. It gives you the option to manually enter in height and width.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.

[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]

I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Reply
#28
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
(November 4, 2018 at 6:27 pm)Rev. Rye Wrote: [Image: 1024px-Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg]

Well, it worked.

And for those of us at home, here's what I got when I decided to reduce it to a width of 400 pixels:


Code:
[img=400x218]https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a8/Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg/1024px-Nighthawks_by_Edward_Hopper_1942.jpg[/img]
The height of 218 pixels was automatically chosen by math to keep up the proportions.

Just click the "insert an image" post and reduce it to whatever width you want. If you don't want to just use the "imgfit" for larger images and "img" for smaller ones, that's it.

(November 4, 2018 at 5:30 pm)Joods Wrote: In the box that pops up when you click on the pic icon to post a pic. It gives you the option to manually enter in height and width.

Just wanted to the echo above.. img fit, and if needed, specifics on dimensions, are incorporated into the BB here.

Also rev, lovely picture.
Love atheistforums.org? Consider becoming a patreon and helping towards our server costs.

[Image: 146748944129044_zpsomrzyn3d.gif]
Reply
#29
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
It's been my favourite painting since I saw it at the Art Institute in I think 2001.
Comparing the Universal Oneness of All Life to Yo Mama since 2010.

[Image: harmlesskitchen.png]

I was born with the gift of laughter and a sense the world is mad.
Reply
#30
RE: Possibly restricting photo sizes?
(November 4, 2018 at 4:47 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:
(November 4, 2018 at 4:39 pm)wyzas Wrote: I resize my images manually if necessary. Select view source, after img type =400x300 (example)

400 is width, 300 is height.
How did you choose that size?

Length and circumference of my penis.

Edit: That's flaccid penis.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental. 
Reply



Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  photo Sharing. PabloTescobar 3 1127 September 15, 2020 at 5:40 pm
Last Post: The Valkyrie
  A request to delete my posts in the members photo thread WinterHold 30 6175 July 1, 2020 at 12:03 pm
Last Post: Nay_Sayer
  Possibly something wrong with rating? tackattack 5 1489 November 19, 2018 at 1:48 am
Last Post: Minimalist
  Suggestion: photo album on user profile Catholic_Lady 21 3932 August 31, 2015 at 3:34 am
Last Post: ErGingerbreadMandude
  Signature sizes fuckass365 8 4109 April 1, 2012 at 4:46 am
Last Post: fr0d0



Users browsing this thread: 2 Guest(s)