I've noticed that the graphics in the forums are shrunk... and looking at the code for the page, I see: <img src="" height=388, width=400... Why are the images being reduced? Why can't the image expand to it's full size? If I wanted the graphic to be 400 pixels wide, I would have reduced it myself. ;) --John

Just click the image and it will take you to the full sized image 8 ) Tom

So that when someone posts a 2000x2000 image, Members don't have to scroll from the Shire to Mordor and back again, just to see everything. ...I think my geek just leaked...

Ahh yes wise Elrond...errr..AgentSmith. 8 )~

Holy Frodo I've been found out...!

we won't hold it against you AgentElrond.

Ah, okay, that's actually a cool feature. :) Thanks, Smith, I mean Elrond, I mean V. ;) --John

but why are the images restricted to only 400 pixels wide,surely it can be widened to fit within a post? it's not just smaller but the quality is reduced also Cheers

Quote - "but why are the images restricted to only 400 pixels wide,surely it can be widened to fit within a post? it's not just smaller but the quality is reduced also Cheers"

The quality is not changed. The images are resized proportionally. If you click on it full-size, you will see that no quality has been lost. Some images saved in higher-compressed states look grainy when displayed smaller-than-full-size. sNw

sorry for dragging this around two posts,I missed this one while posting the other one.. Quality has been lost for display in the forum due to resizing(without forcing anyone into clicking it to see the 'full' size image or scaling images down to 400x) 400 pixels..that's the size of two gallery thumbnails.. I feel I should stress again that this is a graphics site,people should expect to see images of a decent size in forum posts,it doesnt mean scrolling pages but it does mean larger than 400x I dont think taking it to 600x would change your layout.

There is no reason why that should not be a user configurable size. For me, with a screen that is 1600 pixels wide, the 400 thing is microscopic. MAKE IT USER CONFIGURABLE. I'm a software engineer, don't give me excuses. If you can put "welcome, Bagginsbill" at the top of every page, you can put my desired image size in every thread, too.

add my vote for that -- user configurability would be best. personally i don't care to see large images in the forums (yes, this is an art site, but i read the forums for information, and it's rare that i think a large image is useful), and i am all for a small base size on which one needs to click to get the full size. people with slow connections would probably rather not have large images either. if we can't get user configurability, making it dependent on the size of the browser window would be a reasonable alternative. hardcoding, however, is suboptimal.

Quote - "people with slow connections would probably rather not have large images either.

That's a great idea, but that's not how it works. The FULL IMAGE is being displayed, but with instructions to scale it down to 400 pixels wide. The server does not have reduced size versions of the image. It is only delivering the full size image, and your browser then reduces it on the fly. This is why I'm saying that the size should be user configurable. Or, based on the size of my browser window - I like that too. Either way, its just a number in the delivered document - there is no conversion of the image on the server side.