Image Resizing in the galleries is really NOT a good idea.

I want to be able to see an image fullsize straight off - not have to click again to see what it looks like properly. It looks amatuerish and shonky for a site like Rendo' to do this.

I have a couple that are desktop size and they look absolutely CRAP at the resize

Others that are 600x800-ish are ok as the difference isn't that notcieable but anything that is 1024x768 is horrible

After you get rid of the requirements for people to add their home address and phone numbers, and having to learn CSS, this should be #3 on the "TO DO" list

Sean

You know, I was just about to start a thread on this, as I too dislike having to click twice to see a full-size image.

There's a reason I've turned of "image resize" in my browser, I'd much rather have to scroll than to see a pixelated shrunken image.

I like the option of being able to view the image smaller than it's actual size because not all computers can do the extremely high resolutions and scrolling left-right and up-down is a PITA when trying to view an image.

However, to view smaller should be the option,  not have the image display small and have the option to zoom in. 

I'd like to keep the ability to view smaller, but they should reverse the default.

Indeed, otherwise I might start rendering pictures 700x537 pixels for upload here, mostly to avoid image shrink (and "jaggies") and somewhat to protest "non-user' determined image sizing.

For one thing, not everyone uses a high resolution on their monitors.

Also...it's because of stuff like this (Click on image)

You get the people that render HUGE for no reason.
The subject is clearly in the center of the image,and there is nothing other than that to justify such a large render.

This image could be cropped down to 600 pixels wide and you still wouldn't miss anything.

Naturally this is an extreme case, but take notice of how many people do it.

Tom

Geez, hawk and I are in agreement, LOL   Did Hell freeze over!?  :b_stunned:

Yeah, I agree on that too, I try to remove as much "empty" space from images I post here as possible, though I rarely crop when there's a full scene.

Hmmm... Maybe an option for the person uploading a picture to resize the image could be worked out? Or would that not get used?

I find the resizing algorithm to be horrendous! Most images end up badly aliased. What a poor impression the jagged, reduced image will leave on a viewer, many of whom will not take the time to zoom...especially if they are on dialup or a slow connection.

I have been satisfied with most of the changes involved with this conversion and certainly appreciate the hard work that went into completing it. However, this is a terrible way for an art site to showcase it's members work! The interim reduced image needs to go or the reduction algorithm needs to be vastly improved to show the image with the same quality as the full size version!

There is no resizing algorithm in the gallery software. You are viewing the full-size image, but your browser has been instructed to display it at a smaller width. If you are seeing jagged edges, you might investigate the resizing algorithm of your browser. Last night all the images I looked at in Safari, Firefox (Mac and WIndows), and Internet Explorer (IE) looked absolutely fabulous. It might also be a problem with your screen depth settings (16-bit, 32-bit, etc). Just a suggestion. But we aren't resizing. Your browser is. N

Unh-uh, I've disabled image resizing in my browser, so I know it's not the browser doing the resized.

And if that were the case, the galleries wouldn't have a link titled "zoom in" and wouldn't open a new window with a "zoom out" link

I'm also viewing at 1280x1024, yet every image in the galleries is sized to a max width of 700 pixels. Height seems to vary some, but not much.

So trying to claim it's "our fault", like the slowness of the new forums (which wasn't our fault in the end, but a problem in the code) isn't going to fly for those who've figured out more than just the basic functionings of their browser of choice.

Of course, that's if the galleries open for me, which they've decided to stop doing in the last few minutes.

williamsn wrote:

Quote - But we aren't resizing. Your browser is. N

  :b_rolleyes: I'm trying to keep a positive attitude as these changes are being made, but please...you seem to be reacting pretty defensively to this point. The new Rendo coding is telling the browser to resize the image.

I personally have to agree that it's a bad idea to be resizing these images. This isn't a picture of a lamp or vacuum cleaner that someone is going to buy at an online store...it's people's artwork we're talking about...that's what this site is about...artwork, and 2 out of 3 viewers will not click the "zoom" button, so they'll see a version of the image that was NOT the artist's vision.

It's just wrong...sorry.

p.s. someone commented that they liked the zoom feature because they like to get a closer look at some of the details of an image...this seems to be a misunderstanding...the zoom button does not really make the artist's image bigger...it simply restores the image to the original size.

My mis-type. Yes, WE are the ones instructing your browser to display the image smaller. What I meant was, we aren't the ones actually doing the physical scaling. When we set, it is left up to the browser how to handle the scaling. However, when viewed in Safari, Firefox (on both Mac and Windows), and Internet Explorer (on Windows) with 32-bit color depth settings on our machines (pretty standard among most machines), we are not seeing the jaggedness that you describe. A screenshot would be very helpful. In order to keep within the size restraints of the forums, please crop the image rather than resizing it so that the resizing won't affect the jagged effect you are describing. Attach it here and I will do what I can. N

Williamsn, for an example, take a look at my newest upload:
http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1237827

Look at how horribly aliased the shrunken version is (my first comment is even about that, and the blame was assigned to me instead of your new gallery format).  Now click on it and see how it all goes away, b/c it's not there in the originally uploaded image.  However, it's very bad that the first impression that viewers get of our artwork is one that's been mangled through HTML shrinking routines.

In case you are seeing a beautifully anti-aliased shrunken image on some magic uber browser you have, let me show you what I'm seeing in IE 6, 7 and Firefox.  These are unaltered screencaps of what shows up in the shrunken version versus the "zoomed" image that displays when you click.  The only editing on this screencaps is cropping to keep the file size small.  Notice all the jagginess around the legs in the shrunken version.  This occurs over the entire image in my browsers, and apparently at least one of my viewer's browser (look at the first comment on my image above).

Shrunken version vs "Zoomed" Original version

I would suggest allowing a "Shrink to Fit" option (defaulted to off) for people who want it, and know that they are degrading the quality of the images they are seeing.  However, to force that upon all images by default is pretty inconsiderate of the artists.

http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1235392

Look at the jaggies my my signature, as well as on the petals of the lilly.

Terranuts.com does the very same thing.  The image resizing by whatever gallery software he's using also does a poor job at resizing.  As a matter of fact, I've yet to find a PHP gallery that does a good job at it.

Attached Link: Complete image

Being reduced in size by 300x300 pixels doesn't make it look very good to me.

Why resize the images at all?  Telling the browser to resize an image with html accomplishes nothing because the file size is still the same.  I'm on dial-up and a half meg image at 1024x768 takes just as long to load as a half meg image at 640x480.  Resizing via html doesn't increase the speed...it just butchers the image and makes it look horrible.  Now, if the software actually resized and resampled the image and reduced the file size, that might be a different story and useful to some.  But, all that's happening is people are getting irritated looking at bad images and being forced to click once again just to see a piece the way the creator intended for it to be displayed.

HTML resizing = bad idea

If you insist in keeping this "feature", I suggest giving people the option to turn it off.

Giolon & TerraDreamer, those are both great examples of what's happening...I've noticed it several times looking through the galleries myself and have seen a couple other viewers making comments about the aliasing problem, not understanding that it's not the artist's fault...really a shame to have it this way...

I am not one to complain about much, but if you take a really good look through the galleries, you will see the issue people are having with the forced scaling of the images to a max width of 700.

And while you are correct that most of the images look fine with the reduced image size, some are just looking downright horrible. For example, my latest image looks fine when clicked into http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1237532 but when this image is viewed when I click "my summary" the reduction for this image looks horrid. Also, when you click into this image http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1222048 , the reduction is distorting the image badly and the only recourse is to click into the larger image to see it without distortion. I am using the latest versions of several browser using state of the art tech on my system and do not have these issues at other online galleries.

I dont mind the resizing as much as I don't like the quality of the resized image.

For years I have used Renderosity as an online portfolio reference as I am slow to update my personal website. I may have to reconsider this option until this issue is addressed.

~

On a more positive note...

I was a bit skeptical when these new galleries came online but you guys have done a tremendous job of listening and reconciling issues as they were presented from the community.  I am really beginning to like how these new galleries are shaping up :)  Overall you guys did a great job with this!

thanks for your time

I'd just like to note, the sample I posted was what I saw after clicking on the image thumbnail, it hasn't been resized at all by me, the jagged look in the skirt hem is what I see when opening the image in the new gallery setup.

Here's another, no resizing on my end, just what the site software has done. The hair strands especially are horrible looking.

I guess from now on, any image I post to the Renderosity galleries will be 700 pixels wide, maybe less, so people don't have to worry about clicking another button to zoom in.

Williamsn, are you looking at the zoomed in images and saying they're fine?  B/c on my screen, on the dragon image linked in Modus0's original post, the non-zoomed image, the girls legs are all jaggy b/c of the HTML shrinkage routines.  Yes, if you open up the zoomed image it looks great, nice anti-aliased, no problems.  But the issues is that people see the crappy mangled version first and often won't click to see the correct version.  Take a look at the screencaps I posted to show you how these things are showing up for people.

As another poster mentioned, it serves little purpose to force images down to 700px b/c you're not actually saving any bandwidth.  The image file size stays the same, you're just telling the browser to display it in an ugly fashion.

Attached Link: Inspire Me

I'm using IE, my color depth is set to  32 bit, and My screen resolution is set to 1024 x 768, and I don't have Automatic Image Resizing set.

Here's a screenshot for an example, the image is Insprie Me by As Shanim. I cropped it to a width of 441 pxels. The effect is most obvious along her legs, but the "jaggies" can also be seen along the vest, her headband, her back, and even in the hair. This is very different from what you would see if you zoom the image. The resized image looks horrible. This is a prime example of why resizing should either be an individual option or not be done at all.

HI Gang i agree about the two thumbs is not a Great  idea.

We are forced to pass to an intermediate thumbnail of about 700*500 pixel that resizes image in a very Bad way, i dont' think is the browser, in the html page the width of 700 is a value forced by the web site.

For example look at that link, is my last render automatic resize

http://excalibur.renderosity.com/mod/gallery/index.php?image_id=1235042 

The 700500 automatic resize is really Bad, looks like with  noise added respect to the full screen image!!*

It is it possible modify that value via the CSS Stiles??

HAve a nice day

MAX :)

I wonder if it is a drain on system resources to have those extra code lines, e.g. the line(s) to instruct the browser to resize. I am guessing there is no way to add lines to instruct the browser to display the jpeg image at higher compression (lower quality), nor is there a way to recompress the image on upload to the gallery, but if there is a way, I reckon that might also be a drain on system resources. however, I have noticed problems with various gallery software in that there's a limit to the number of images before the system starts to slow down severely. here it appears to be around 20,000 or 30,000, whereas with others it's more like 5,000 to 7,000.

Attached Link: Surang, a hell of a girl

I don't know what browser you're using, but I think the point is many others are not seeing what you claim to be seeing when we look at the resized image. The zoomed images are fine, but many of the resized images look horrible and we have given you examples.

Here's another prime example. Look at the jaggies along the outline of the girl. I'm sure this artist never intended her work to be seen in this condition. It's all well and good for you to sit there and say, "well it's not happening for me"...but it is happening for many others and changing our browsers is not a solution.

Quote - Williamsn, are you looking at the zoomed in images and saying they're fine?

Nope. If you look closely at the bottom of one of the images, you will see the buttons for adding artist to favorites, etc. Those aren't screenshots of the images zoomed-in. Those are screenshots as the images in the same state that you are seeing jagged edges. > Quote - I don't know what browser you're using...

I'm using Safari, Firefox and IE and getting the same result on all of them.

Please take an objective stance when it comes to this issue. I have been doing application development for over 15 years now and I have been guilty more than once of jumping to the conclusion that everything looks good on my computer, so there must be something wrong with yours. 

I have learned through the years that this is not only condesending <sp?> to the person who is trying to tell you about an issue, but it is shortsighted as well. Just because all is right with your machine, doesn't mean all is right with the world. There is an issue here whether or not you want to recognize it as such. I have gone to several different machines now, with different hardware configurations, with several different browsers and this issue is repeatable. The only platform I have not been able to view this issue on is a Mac.

It could be there is something different about your machines or the machines where you are located that allow distortion free browser resizing without an algorithm. Because as far as I know, whenever the browser resizes an image, there is always the possibility for distortion. 

thanks again for your time

Quote - I'm using Safari, Firefox and IE and getting the same result on all of them.

I can't imaging how you are getting the same result on IE. Aside from the fact that I have a screen resolution of 1024x768 my other settings are probably the same as yours and I've shown you what I see. We've shown you we this is a problem for many of us, the question is what will be done to resolve it?

Bingo!  There it is right there.  SkoolDaze picked it out.  Look at willamsn's signature: "I <3 MY MAC".  I'll bet that's what he's viewing these galleries on.  Mac vs. Windows aside, I'll bet that all of us seeing this issue are using Windows.  However, saying "switch to mac!" is not a valid solution.

Find a PC and look at the examples provided,williamsn.  I'm sure you'll see the issue that we all are.

I was instructed to keep discussion to the same thread, so that nothing is missed.  In that  interest, bringing over from my other thread "RE: FAQ and info on the New Galleries":

Quote - StaceyG         Q.      Why are you resizing images?

 

       A.     There is no resizing algorithm in the gallery software. You are viewing the full-size image, we have instructed your browser to display it at a smaller width. If you are seeing jagged edges, you might investigate the resizing algorithm of your browser. Last night all the images we looked at in Safari, Firefox (Mac and WIndows), and Internet Explorer (Windows) looked absolutely fabulous.

It might also be a problem with your screen depth settings (16-bit, 32-bit, etc).

Just a suggestion. But we aren't resizing. Your browser is.

This is quite misguided.  First of all, telling users to somehow "replace" the resizing algorithm used by their browsers is just downright comical.  AFAIK, there isn't even a way to do this.  If there is, I'd like to see the method of doing so provided.  How many people would really go through that rigamarole and instead just remain unaware of it and look at the jaggy images thinking its the artist's fault?

Please take a look around thread. Some of us have posted screenshots of what we are seeing with the gallery's forced downsizing of images.

I am using WinXP SP2 using 32-bit color depth and a desktop resolution of 1280x1024, and I've checked in IE 6, 7, and Firefox on all with the browsers' "Automatic Image Resizing" turned OFF.  Your galleries are adding "width=700" to the tags in the galleries and it is causing browsers to shrink the images with horrible distortion and compression causing artifacts such as jagginess.  Telling people to switch browsers is not a solution (especially since I've tried several and all have the same issue).

Quoting from the general gallery feedback thread:

Quote - svdlI definitely DO NOT like the resizing of the images. Too much quality loss, and the fixed format does not take into account that higher resolution screens like 1280x1024, 1600x900 or even more are getting more common everyday. User options to select whether you want to see large images resized to a predefined screen size, or to view them as uploaded would be so much better. Take a look at how the Renderotica gallery software works if you want to know how it should be done.

That is an absolutely fantastic idea, svdl.  The way that Renderotica does it is pretty much perfect, IMO.  The option is in plain sight and visible so that people will see it, and it lets you know that the images you're looking at may have been shrunk (just as poorly over there as they are here I might add) to fit the screen.  This makes the option to turn it on or off available and informative.

Attached Link: Image Comparison

This is a direct screen cap of the image both zoomed in and out at the same time.  It may be a bit large, but it does show the issue on my system.

Browser: IE6 SP2
HW Platform: PC
OS Platform: Windows XP Media Center Edition
Graphics: GeForce Go 7900 GTX 512MB (32bit Color)
Resolution: 1920X1200

Again, this was duplicated on WinXP Pro, Windows 2000 and Windows 98 using Netscape, IE5, IE6 and Firefox at varying resolutions and color depth.

thanks

I just wanted to add...

This issue is the same on my laptop, which is 3 months old as is on my desktop PC which is almost 3 years old. I also want to reiterate that I have galleries all over the internet and have not seen this type of distortion when they resize an image for display purposes. And by restricting the width to 700, you are resizing the image.

And as far as I know, there is no way to set options for an image resizing algorithm within a browser and even if there is, this would seem to be a bit much to ask of someone who is browsing your site to modify browser settings from the standard just to view images as they were intended to be viewed.

Quote - This one looks nice and smooth too but I'm afraid changing the image quality to fit the forums max filesize might have degraded it. We'll see. Edit: Yep, still looks great, even after downing the image quality to fit it into the forums.

Hon...your next trip outside the building should be to an eye doctor.  If you can't see the extreme jaggies on her legs and outfit and your eyes are fine, you need to calibrate your monitor.

What irritates me is that there are MANY people saying this is an issue and you chime in that everything is fine on YOUR computer.  Good for you!  We're delighted.

However, professional designers/programmers/coders know that they must design to meet the needs of the MAJORITY of viewers.  Clearly, you have failed to do that with limiting image size to 700.

If this isn't going to be fixed, just say so and limit our image sizes to 700 x 500.  Or, just ignore our issue and keep telling us that it MUST be our computer since you can see it fine.

It's this type of response from admin that is an insult to our intelligence.

please get rid of the image resizing!

1. It looks like crap (Win XP, Firefox)
2. Another unnecessary click required

Quote - However, professional designers/programmers/coders know that they must design to meet the needs of the MAJORITY of viewers.  Clearly, you have failed to do that with limiting image size to 700.

If this isn't going to be fixed, just say so and limit our image sizes to 700 x 500.  Or, just ignore our issue and keep telling us that it MUST be our computer since you can see it fine.

You keep the right focus.. 

Full Quote!

http://www.hometrainingtools.com/tbimages/12192.lg.jpg try here ;)

ROFL!  That's great, Khai!  Thanks!!!

sinamin2001 wrote:

Quote - What irritates me is that there are MANY people saying this is an issue and you chime in that everything is fine on YOUR computer.  Good for you!  We're delighted.

This drives me crazy, too! We were hearing this when many were talking about the poor site speed ("site speed is fine here" they'd say), now we're hearing it again on this issue. I do wonder whether anyone actually listens to themselves when they say things like "you might investigate the resizing algorithm of your browser" as a solution to what I guess they consider to be "our" problem.

I also wonder how many of the tech people & decision-makers actually create any of their own artwork...I'm sure some must, but I don't understand how they can be so dismissive of an issue that so directly affects the way artwork is present here, a site dedicated to art. {shakes head}

I feel like this thread is getting a little hostile.  The admins are going to stop responding to it and dismiss our problems as those of trolls. :(

Business as usual from my standpoint. It's all about Options and the fact that we always end up screaming for them for months before we see them, if at all. I do appreciate the "Open New Window" option, but doesn't it contradict itself when we have to literally open a new window to see the original version of the image??

I was really shocked when I first viewed my new gallery as I mostly post at 1600x1200, and the "preview" images look horrible and unprofessional, to say the least. So, if trying to hack PHP to get our color preferences back isn't bad enough, now you have us writing in C++ to fix our browsers? LOL  :blink: Wow!

I also think the "Delete Gallery" link should not be so readily accessible in the gallery page, and should also be an...[Oh, oh, here we go again with the "O" word] OPTION. It's all about options, customization, and ergonomics. Now I am seeing this flaoting popup window upon hovering over any thumbnail, and the background color almost matches the text color exactly. I have no idea in the code what that item is or how to fix it.

I understand there will be growing pains in this huge process of conversion, but denial isn't really helping anyone here, especially with the dramatic scope of change that has thrown most of us in shock already.

If anyone cares, my gallery is a pretty good example of what the word butchery defines. Many people won't bother to "Zoom" to see the real deal, and I think it's sad. This is the only site I know of that requires a BA in Computer Science just to operate and navigate comfortably.

Between hacking PHP script and coding in C++, I might as well give Nuclear Physics a shot next.   Let's please put the broom away and solve some problems as there seem to be no shortage of those around here.

Hummm i fear that this problem is more general than the admins side can see due some special hardware/software configuration. but if i see this one as a visitor

I think that i would't waste my time to zoom it in the confidence that is the same image quality and just bigger size.

i dont think either that the vast majority of the 400K active members in rosity would even care to click the zoom option when an image looks like that.

As a programmer myself i understand that if the users telling me that something is not nice, then something is not nice even if i feel that is the 8th earth marvel.

I'm certain that this issue will be solved real soon, Rosity tends to listen at the end. :)

moving the right menu bar to the left, let enough room to let the image grow beyond the screen limits.

Cheers

Ramón

 PD. sorry, i'm not shure but i think that to resize an image you must resample it in order to get rid of the problem, i do this always i insert an image in a web page and i need to resize it, not shure if this is the same issue.

Quote - I was really shocked when I first viewed my new gallery as I mostly post at 1600x1200, and the "preview" images look horrible and unprofessional, to say the least. So, if trying to hack PHP to get our color preferences back isn't bad enough, now you have us writing in C++ to fix our browsers? LOL  :blink: Wow!

You're imagining things.  According to williamsn, everything is fine.

Quote - If anyone cares, my gallery is a pretty good example of what the word butchery defines. Many people won't bother to "Zoom" to see the real deal, and I think it's sad. This is the only site I know of that requires a BA in Computer Science just to operate and navigate comfortably.

I just tried to visit your gallery.  When I click on the link to it from your home page, it takes me to the All and All new images, not your gallery.  Everything is completely trashed on this site.

although i couldn't access the galleries in safari, I was able to access them in exploder (OS X). I can confirm nic's findings: the resized images are as smooth as the full-size images in OS X, due to what they call "sub-pixel rendering". more primitive systems (OS 9 and XP, which was based on OS 8 and 9) do indeed show the jagged resizing artifacts. however, vista will also have sub-pixel rendering, hence I daresay it's only a few more months' wait (until mar '07) and perhaps these resizing issues will be a thing of the past. :lol: seriously, though, if only 3% of clients can see smooth resized images, I reckon one must give in to the inevitable, especially as it appears to be the same load on the server whether the resized or full-sized image is brought up. perhaps the idea behind the resizing was to let somebody decide if they wanna load really huge images, but I think they can tell if they wanna load 'em just based on the thumb image.

give us the option please!
Richard

Miss Nancy wrote:

Quote - if only 3% of clients can see smooth resized images, I reckon one must give in to the inevitable, especially as it appears to be the same load on the server whether the resized or full-sized image is brought up. perhaps the idea behind the resizing was to let somebody decide if they wanna load really huge images, but I think they can tell if they wanna load 'em just based on the thumb image.

Gosh, I hope you're right and this will get changed very, very soon.

I actually think, and I really don't mean this to be disrespectful at all, that there is a tendancy for web designers to want to "keep control" of the way a website they've designed looks. I think this priciple is taught in school, and I understand it because, to them, these website designs are their own "artwork." So allowing images to be 700px or 900px or 1250px or whatever # of pixels wide will change the way the page looks...and control is lost. I just think the "cost" of keeping that controlled width of 700px is just too steep due to the effect it has on the artwork.

It's supposed to be all about the artwork.

Just to add another guy's opinion: resized images are horrible, and they would be just hugly if they were resized smoothly (which isn't the case anyway) -- as I've already clicked a thumb, I do not want to see another one, I want to see the real picture!

The best way to handle this? The Renderotica's way, as was already pointed out (and over there, of course, I have "original size" as default ;)! )

Second: let me second (he he!) Shardz -- take away that "delete gallery" (at least hide it well and then ask for confirmation a dozen time, not that I checked if confirmation is aready implemented ;) ), I was chilled to the bones when I realized my pointer was quitely resting on it, fingers on mouse buttons and all (BTW I just have this f§#!ing low-cost mouse with too light buttons and the mere finger's wheight can produce a click if I relax to much... just to explain my thrill ;^) )

Then finally I think due to mention it appears You're otherwise doing a HUGE and fine job (though it seems I can't acces the galleries at all presently... but I guess this is the warming up process ;)! )

Regards,

Stefano

Quote - perhaps the idea behind the resizing was to let somebody decide if they wanna load really huge images, but I think they can tell if they wanna load 'em just based on the thumb image.

It makes no difference, the full image is being loaded, the gallery software is just forcing the image to be displayed at a smaller size. It is utter nonsense to treat a gallery image the same way they treat an image in a forum.

Just before the shut down yesterday I came up with a CSS solution to the auto 700 pixel width (image resizing) thing. Once the galleries are back up and I've finished work, I'll post the result.

Well, if I could get into the galleries right now I'd post screenies but ... :)

Take a look at my 'African Skies 6' submission. Look closely at the moon and  you will see that it is terribly 'jaggy' on the image that comes up when you click the thumbnail. The moon doesn't even look round any more. If you then view it at original size it looks exactly the way it was supposed to.

I use Windows XP, IE 6, and image resizing is most definately switched off (that 'feature' drives me absolutely batty!)

williamsn there is definately a problem for more than just a few of us. We're not all just smoking our socks. :)

The resizing thing is an offense to the artwork and artists. There's neither benefit for the site performance, nor for the artwork! To set the width attribute to 700px is just to protect the site layout/design. So it seems, the site design is more important than the content/artwork displayed! ??? I wouldn't mind down-scaling and another click, if the quality would be okay, but in fact it is not. I'd rather prefer to delete my gallery images and upload images not wider than 700px, than have them displayed in such bad and ragged quality.