Best size to post photos?

[Wandering Daisy]

What is the KB size of the "box" when photos are added to a trip report? I gather you can post up to about 2MB, but does it really matter? I assume the 2MB photos are automatically reduced. I have to reduce photos anyway to post, so it seems that I do not need to have them as large as 2MB. I have posted photos from old trips at about 400-500 KB and they seem OK. It is hard for me to tell what is good quality because it is not only the HST reduction but how it shows up on my computer (very old), which is a bit lacking in graphic capability.

[copeg]

Currently uploads are a max of 2.5mb. These are then resized by the software if necessary down to 750px (or 12kb max). The original is maintained on server so that when someone clicks the resized image in thread the software should open the original. Because resizes are done automatically on the backend the resize may not be the 'best' representation with respect to image properties such as sharpening. It is recommended to embed the color profile in the image (ideally sRGB) to avoid color profile problems. Hope this helps

[bobby49]

I've been a Photoshop user for about 15 years now. I shoot RAW image files in the camera and then transfer them to the computer. The Canon editing software does a few basic corrections and then produces a TIF file, often around 50-60 MB. The fewer corrections that are necessary, the better. That maximum resolution is very useful for killer high resolution paper prints.

That TIF goes to Photoshop for any subtle corrections, flaw removal, sharpening, and whatever. Then that is produced as a fine JPEG, still at the original resolution.

Now, if I know that this file is _hugely_ overkill for HST, then I will downsize it to be within HST limits before upload to HST. Then I let HST software have its way with it. If HST displays an image of 2.5 MB, then it still ought to look pretty good.

[SSSdave]

... are then resized by the software if necessary down to 750px (or 12kb max). .. when someone clicks the resized image in thread the software should open the original...

That is why above images images I post even though already severely downsized for web use,will add: (mouse select to enlarge)

Otherwise the majority of Internet audiences understand little about image resolution and or apparent display qualities. Another question members ought understand is how the HST site displays linked images both within posts and if mouse selected. The below is a 4x5 transparency I shot in 2007 that I today just digitized to 8,000 pixel height and then downsized to 2,000 pixel height and loaded to Postimages dot cc for an external link for this thread. Notice mouse selecting the image has no effect. The result is very mutilated, soft. Internet sites have to do this lest many will load huge unsized image files even though they have mediocre true detail.



Below is the same image uploaded to HST via the Attachments function. Notice how it still looks mediocre but now after mouse selecting as Eric related and if one is also viewing on a window size on one's display large enough to display such, it actually does show the correct 2000 pixel height image that was 1.4 megabytes. Increasing the image file size will hardly improve the visual even if the audience has a reasonable display to view it, which few will. Make your browser viewing window small and notice how that works. Even if someone has a 4k display, they will not be able to view any full image taller than 2160 pixels high. (UHD 4k is 3840 wide by 2160 tall.) In the future, 8k displays will allow just 7860x4320 maximum. Thus don't bother linking to external sites as I used to do because the better display herein is only possible if using this new forum function. Note other web sites may display linked versus site downloaded images differently, even opposite this.

(mouse select to enlarge)