Message edited on: 05/12/2005 22:30

Try to keep it fairly low filesize, and no more than 800 pixels across. This just makes it easier for people to download/view. Nice looking trees, but a bit hard to see at that size.

I usually go for 550x whatever. mall enough it loads quick but big enough to see.

Considering that the majority of people in this world use 1024x768, I usually go with the 1152x864-sized Bryce output, which is 992x772, or something. So, under a thousand wide. Nothing screams "shortcut" like a small image. The only real constriction is 500K for your gallery version, or 200K in here. Not really a problem, even for big images.

Actually, lordstormdragon, your images in the forum are the ones that bug me. ;-) My resolution is 1024x768 but I always have to scroll right on your forum images, which also makes me have to scroll right to read the posts underneath.

Aye, Jasonmit... But alas, will I sacrifice image quality for the sake of the few? Turn your resolution up. Increase your font size and your icon size, if necessary. I use THREE monitors for imaging, and there's no way I'm gonna make smaller images just because a few people have old monitors. I've waited for TWENTY YEARS to do images at big sizes! Regression isn't an option for me, my friend. Jason, no offense, but 1024x768 resolution came out in 1992. It's been 13 years, man. Try and keep up. (before attempting to judge me for elistism, look again at my screen name : I've already judged myself)

Yeah, but you're a fun, smart elitist. For the non-elitists, I'd suggest 800 for the width in the forums. Larger is fine for the galleries.

I agree with LSD. My primary monitor is set at 1280 x 1024 and my secondary is set at 1024 x 768 but both get scaled up or down as needed. On the fly sizing is pretty much the standard in newer video cards.

They have these little things called "middle mouse buttons", for Windows computers anyway. If you hold it down for a second, it will bring up a "mover", so you won't have to use the scroll bars if you don't want to... Then you just wave your mouse around!

If you use Firefox, just right click and select "View Image" and it will be resized to fit your screen. ;)

Just made two more attemts to upload larger image. 688x516 292kb. Forum will not accept it. It gets kicked out, I've run into this before. There is constraints preventing upload. If it is the file size and not the image size, How do it reduce one without the other?

Third attempt worked. It is the file size problem. So back to original question image suggestions? and also, how do I reduce file size and not redusce or degrade image? I use PSP7 and 9 for post work and sizing.

You must get your image's physical size below 200K. Like I mentioned in another thread, you can use a program called Riptide to access the entire 8-bit .jpg compression spectrum. For example, you give it a target size (195K for forums, 450K for Galleries), and it automatically calculates and displays the loss and difference! Or, you can slide the 256-level (8-bit) slider and it will calculate it's output size, with % degradation. With a program like this (there are others), you would have no problem reducing your filesize to 200K, even if the image were FOUR TIMES the size it is shown in #12. It's not about physical size so much as it is about data size. I could go on and on about compression for hours, but I'll sum it up : don't use PSP for exporting your images to .jpg. Use another program, I'll direct you to a few if you need it! It says right on the upload page that you can't upload a file larger than 200K to the Forums... I dont' know why you tried?

I'm sorry I'm not as smart as some of you. Condesending remarks don't help me, where to get software and costs do. I'll google it. Maybe that site won't make me feel small. I just surfed gallery upload, and clicked every link I could find on gallery and forum upload pages and can't find the reference to file size constraints so graciously pointed out. It might be there but I'm overlooking it. LSD give me a url and I'll save it to favorites so as to... never mind. All I wanted was image comments in the first place.

Okay, how do you find out what your monitor is set at? And how do you change it? AND change if back if it all goes pearshaped?

In windows- find an area of the desktop with no icons on it, and right-click. Go to properties, then Settings, and that's where your size is set to. Just make sure you don't set it higher than the monitor can go, or you'll be rebooting in Safe mode to get your screen back. That's not usually a problem with most modern monitors, so I wouldn't worry much. On a MAC..I dunno..but it probably requires holding down the 'cloverleaf' key and 3 others at the compass points of the keyboard..;)

Aye, Skillweegee, I wasn't trying to be condescending, my friend... You're plenty smart, as displayed by your wonderful imagery! I wasn't trying to insult you, but reading the upload screens would have saved you some time, that's all...

i agree with jason scrolling to read the text is a bore so plz keep forum posts at 800 and add a link to the bigger pic.

LSD, point taken. This haggle has bothered me all day at work. Sorry I misread. Is software you speaking of "riptide photo imaging" And what is location of forum posting constraints? All I can find is a notation of image sizes in literature gallery, and size limits in main gallery. I would like to know so I can look it up next time instead of taxing my brain to remember the numbers

In the forums, you may post any image as long as it's below 200K. You may link to as many other images as you like, though... In the galleries it's 500K, in the forums it's 200K.

pakled, Phew! Thank goodness for "settings have been changed, do you want to keep them?" as my screen almost literally went pearshaped! The desktop background image had a concave black edge on the right and the icons dissapeared on the left! Arrrggghhhhh! I'll just have to live with only ever being able to see a quarter of LSD's image at a time.

(laughs!) My images aren't THAT big. 992x706 is still not even screen resolution! I guess I'm spoiled. I live by Seattle, where hardware is dirt cheap. A good 17-inch monitor that'll go up to 1280x1024 is about $15 US here. But still, people, come on! You all bought the Bryce 5.5 hype, but you can't just stroll down to a used computer store to get a newer monitor? I feel like we're back in 386-land here, and it's atrocious. I refuse to sacrifice detail and quality for any reason. No sorrow in that, for me.

Mine IS 17"... dunno why some images always run miles off the edges, (sides AND top & bottom) of my screen. Except that my setting tell me it's at 1024x768. Only like I said, if I try messing with it - everything goes pearshaped.

Hey, skiwillgee. I like your sky in the snow scene. And I was right about the snow's surface - it doesn't look smooth enough. To me anyway.

these tired and aged eyes tend to have problems with anything over 1024..;) I could probably go up to 1600 with the current monitor, but my glasses need replacing anyways..;)

I found some fuzz in my mouth.

Er... p'raps you should see a doctor about that? ggg