Best Downsizing procedures to post photos on BC Forums????

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
OK from the test in my post above:

-In all cases the website resizes the images.
-If the uploaded image is smaller than the width of the web page it is resized apparently based on the monitor being used
-If the uploaded image is larger than 1800px wide it gets downsized to 1800px and then gets downsized again to fit the page depending on monitor being used
-If an image larger than 1800px is linked rather than downloaded it gets downsized to fit the page depending on monitor being used. NOTE: This produced the sharpest image because downsizing is only done once.

BarkingBeansCoffee said:
@NorthernFocus Dan what do you see from your experiment. Seems to me the 2MB is better than the dimension resizing and the linked better yet?
Click to expand...
On my Windows 11 laptop using Chrome browser on 2560x1600 monitor:
- 1200px upload is definitely soft
- linked image (3200x2133px) looks as sharp as when viewed in LR
- the other two lie in between and look about the same to me. They were both resized to 1800x1200 from 1920 and 3200(long side) respectively.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
@Highbow what if you don't see the width and just limit the original pixels to 2mb. What do you see?
Click to expand...
I wouldn't recommend using image file size along with jpeg compression as a way to post files on the web. For starters it will vary dramatically with image content. For instance an image with a small subject surrounded by a lot of clear blue sky with very little tone variation will compress to a very small file. An image filled with intricate detail will compress to a much larger file for the same jpeg quality settings.

And again, how that will display depends a lot on the viewing software and hardware in use at the viewers end. In a file that will compress well you'll end up with large pixel dimensions that may look fine on some screens particularly larger screens or for viewers running browsers or monitors that resize on the fly but will be much too large to view for many other viewers that run browsers and monitors that simply display to the actual image pixel dimensions.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I wouldn't recommend using image file size along with jpeg compression as a way to post files on the web. For starters it will vary dramatically with image content. For instance an image with a small subject surrounded by a lot of clear blue sky with very little tone variation will compress to a very small file. An image filled with intricate detail will compress to a much larger file for the same jpeg quality settings.

And again, how that will display depends a lot on the viewing software and hardware in use at the viewers end. In a file that will compress well you'll end up with large pixel dimensions that may look fine on some screens particularly larger screens or for viewers running browsers or monitors that resize on the fly but will be much too large to view for many other viewers that run browsers and monitors that simply display to the actual image pixel dimensions.
Click to expand...
Ok - yet if we have to work within the limits of 2mb here, isn't that the limitation and it seems better than setting the dimensions based on my Ibis image and Dan's images. Try posting some as well and let's see where the thread takes us.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I wouldn't recommend using image file size along with jpeg compression as a way to post files on the web. For starters it will vary dramatically with image content. For instance an image with a small subject surrounded by a lot of clear blue sky with very little tone variation will compress to a very small file. An image filled with intricate detail will compress to a much larger file for the same jpeg quality settings.

And again, how that will display depends a lot on the viewing software and hardware in use at the viewers end. In a file that will compress well you'll end up with large pixel dimensions that may look fine on some screens particularly larger screens or for viewers running browsers or monitors that resize on the fly but will be much too large to view for many other viewers that run browsers and monitors that simply display to the actual image pixel dimensions.
Click to expand...
My testing results in any image larger than 1800px wide being reduced to 1800. And then apparently resized based on the user's system/browser when viewed. Also when you click on the uploaded image to use the viewing function on the website the images all display at the same size. Linked images don't display when clicked on but rather jump to the linked website.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
Agree. The linked is the best. But what do you mean by "linked". I see no link..... I thought we could only upload.....?
Click to expand...
You can host images on other websites and show them here with a proper BBCode link. I think this board is based on BBCode. I use Imgbb free version. Once learned it is very easy to get the correct link. I use BBCode Full Linked. I am still not 100% clear on the reason but do know that most of the time I save 3-5mb sized images with no pixel reduction. Would love to see you try that with the Iguana and see what you think.

You can link from other websites as well you just need to know what works with this board which isn't hard to figure with a little trial and error. Some other places I post aren't BBCode so they require another type of link.
1678796142325.png
 
Member's gallery
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
You can host images on other websites and show them here with a proper BBCode link. I think this board is based on BBCode. I use Imgbb free version. Once learned it is very easy to get the correct link. I use BBCode Full Linked. I am still not 100% clear on the reason but do know that most of the time I save 3-5mb sized images with no pixel reduction. Would love to see you try that with the Iguana and see what you think.

You can link from other websites as well you just need to know what works with this board which isn't hard to figure with a little trial and error. Some other places I post aren't BBCode so they require another type of link.
View attachment 56796
Click to expand...
Hmmm....I would LOVE to be able to link to my personal Smugmug website......and not have to open and re-size an image just to post it here.

So - I clicked on the bbcode icon in the upper right, copied bbcode from Smugmug @ 1200 on the longest side and pasted it below. Is that the correct process?

 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
Hmmm....I would LOVE to be able to link to my personal Smugmug website......and not have to open and re-size an image just to post it here.

So - I clicked on the bbcode icon in the upper right, copied bbcode from Smugmug @ 1200 on the longest side and pasted it below. Is that the correct process?
Click to expand...
That works. Another way you don't have to bother with the BB coding. When you click on the icon at top of comment box to insert image the box appears that says "drop image". There is also the little link icon. If you click on that then the box opens to enter the URL of where your image resides. You can just paste the URL there and it basically writes the BB code for you. Not much different but slightly simpler process.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
Hmmm....I would LOVE to be able to link to my personal Smugmug website......and not have to open and re-size an image just to post it here.

So - I clicked on the bbcode icon in the upper right, copied bbcode from Smugmug @ 1200 on the longest side and pasted it below. Is that the correct process?
Click to expand...
Is the image on SmugMug full size. Try that - you don't need the @1200 limit. Full size is where you get the sharpest image back here it seems.
 
Member's gallery
NorthernFocus said:
That works. Another way you don't have to bother with the BB coding. When you click on the icon at top of comment box to insert image the box appears that says "drop image". There is also the little link icon. If you click on that then the box opens to enter the URL of where your image resides. You can just paste the URL there and it basically writes the BB code for you. Not much different but slightly simpler process.
Click to expand...

Thanks. That's what I do on another forum.
BarkingBeansCoffee said:
Is the image on SmugMug full size. Try that - you don't need the @1200 limit. Full size is where you get the sharpest image back here it seems.
Click to expand...
I upload full size images to my website. But regardless of what size I select, I believe the BCG s/w will re-size it. So I just select the size that is 1200 px on the longest side.
 
Member's gallery
Butlerkid said:
Thanks. That's what I do on another forum.

I upload full size images to my website. But regardless of what size I select, I believe the BCG s/w will re-size it. So I just select the size that is 1200 px on the longest side.
Click to expand...
We don’t know what the various systems are doing. I would try a post with a comparison linking full size vs 1200.
 
Member's gallery
This thread has been eye-opening, didn't realize my home monitor (iMac 5k) had an impact on the quality of photos being shared on web forums. Makes me doubt every photo I've shared, but also every photo I've seen posted. It could have also clouded my judgement on how I perceive certain lenses as "not so sharp", as I wasn't necessarily seeing the actual quality trying to be portrayed.

So I updated my LR export presets w/ the one from Steve. Could someone tell me if this looks sharp, or is it blotchy? To me, it looks pretty bad, and I wouldn't post it thinking that I'd be sharing a sub-standard quality photo.
NIKON Z 9untitled_20230310_200-Edit-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
MatthewK said:
This thread has been eye-opening, didn't realize my home monitor (iMac 5k) had an impact on the quality of photos being shared on web forums. Makes me doubt every photo I've shared, but also every photo I've seen posted. It could have also clouded my judgement on how I perceive certain lenses as "not so sharp", as I wasn't necessarily seeing the actual quality trying to be portrayed.

So I updated my LR export presets w/ the one from Steve. Could someone tell me if this looks sharp, or is it blotchy? To me, it looks pretty bad, and I wouldn't post it thinking that I'd be sharing a sub-standard quality photo.
View attachment 56841
Click to expand...
Yeah not great on my 2560x1200 monitor. Not exactly soft but not what I'd call sharp.
 
Member's gallery
Another comparison for folks. 1220 px upload vs 2400x2400 linked. There's a clear difference on my Windows 11 2560x1200p monitor using Chrome browser.

Upload@1200x1200
_NZ99302_DxO.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Link to 2400x2400 original
p1555449500.jpg
 

Attachments

  • _NZ99302_DxO_2402 x 2402-2.jpg
    _NZ99302_DxO_2402 x 2402-2.jpg
    158.1 KB · Views: 40
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I knew it, ugh... I've been sharing crap quality shots this whole time :mad:

Both of your shots above look great, but the 2nd one looks a lot better. What did you do to both to get them to display so clearly here on BCG?

I also need to ask LanceB what he does, because his shots are some of the best quality I've seen posted here, at least on my iMac 5k
 
Member's gallery
If you are using Flickr, you can upload a hi res image in Flickr and then select different resolution BB codes depending on what works best for web posting. These days I just start with a relatively small res BB code, paste it on my post and click “preview” and if it looks good to my eyes, on the monitor I use, then I post it. If the smaller res doesn’t look good, I select the next higher resolution and so on until I find it decent.
 
Member's gallery
Just testing. This is 1200

bots-0907-DSC01963-Edit-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


2800 (I increased the limit)

bots-0907-DSC01963-Edit.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
In looking at both my test photos and other images, it's clear it's monitor dependent.

With the 5K monitor, the higher res images look better.

With the 1080 monitor, the 1200px image looks better.

With my iPhone they are identical.

With my iPad Pro, it's the second image.
 
Member's gallery
Honestly, after all of it I'm still not sure what the answer is. I guess if you anticipate people viewing on higher res devices, use higher res photos :)

Also, from my research and experience, this isn't just a forum issue. I think any images posted to websites have this challenge. Ideally, you load a high res image and the system detects the device resolution and if it's above a certain threshold, it shows the full image, otherwise a smaller version. However, server software isn't great at resizing, so that in an of itself is a challenge too.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top