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).

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.
I think it's safe to say most of your forum members have one 4k monitor, not all but most.

Is the size size limit the same at 2mp just 2800px on the long side?
 
I think it's safe to say most of your forum members have one 4k monitor, not all but most.

Is the size size limit the same at 2mp just 2800px on the long side?
2MB - it's a server limit. I might be able to adjust it, but have no clue where. I'd have to contact my web service and see. However, even for those larger files, 2MB should be enough. The larger version of the fish eagle was only 1.1MB saved at "10" in Photoshop. More detailed images will get larger of course, but let's see. If we run into issues, I can see if I can lift the 2MB limit on the server.
 
If the 2MB limit is a problem, try JpegMini. https://www.jpegmini.com It compresses jpegs in a visually lossless way. I use it a lot for websites and also to compress whole folders of jpegs. I find it best to set the pixel size first in Photoshop or the raw convertor, and then run the jpeg through JpegMini to reduce the file size.

There is a trial version.
 
I tried to read through all the posts but I may have missed this. I go back to Steve's post on the 1st page but it isn't just about Mac's with high rez screens. Most OS's will take into account the size of the screen and pixel density and scale the screen so that it's comfortable to read. In the Apple world they call this retina where they have monitors that are double the "comfortable" pixel density then "scale" the UI 2x.

On windows machines if you go into display settings you'll see a scaling option. For example on my windows 4k 15" laptop the recommended scaling is 250%.

So why does that matter? Well programs like LR and PS take this into account so when you look at your image 1:1 its actually showing you the pixel for pixel image. In other words its smart enough to figure out what's going on. Browsers on the other hand don't. They go with whatever scaling option you have so images in forums are scaled 2x on a Apple Retina display, making everything look big and fuzzy. On windows machines they will scale to whatever setting you have in your display settings.

This is also true for tablets so viewing images on the forum via an iPad makes the images look less sharp than they really are.

Here is an example of what images look like in a browser (fredmiranda) between native resolution and the default scaling options.

NativeResolution.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.


Default_Scaling.jpeg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



Here is how those same two images look in LR at 100%. You can see that LR is displaying the images at the same size even though the UI elements are all different

5k_LR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.



Default_LR.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
I posted the Common Bronzewing Pigeon using an image 3431 x 2433 Pixels and 1.64 MB (1,719,767 Bytes) in size after my limited processing, crop and denoise - no resizing.
The 2MB image size was the limit I aimed to be below, not the Pixel size to see what would result.
CBP_upload.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

The server software accepted that image and resized it to 2800 x 1986 Pixels and 490.68 KB (502,457 Bytes) in size.
CBP_download.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

Server limits seem to be 2800 x 1986 Pixels and let the size float.
 
...The server software accepted that image and resized it to 2800 x 1986 Pixels and 490.68 KB (502,457 Bytes) in size.

Server limits seem to be 2800 x 1986 Pixels and let the size float.
In a post above @Steve indicated that he just increased the size limit to 2800px(presumably long side) but left the file size limit at 2MB. Previously based on tests I did a few days ago the limit was 1800x1800px or 2MB. So anything larger than those pixel dimensions gets downsized to 2800 for the upload and then get downsized again to fit the web page. Linked images only get downsized once to fit the web page for display.
 
I think it's safe to say most of your forum members have one 4k monitor, not all but most.

Is the size size limit the same at 2mp just 2800px on the long side?
4K? I don't think they were offering that in 2011 when I bought my high-end NEC! LOL! The darn thing is still going strong. Maybe someday I'll have an excuse to "upgrade".......
 
Just experimenting in Photoshop "export as", a complex image 2800 on the long side was able to be saved at 1.2 megabytes with the jpeg quality set to 5 out of the 7 scale that module uses. Going up to 6 took 2.2 megabytes, so just over the limit.
 
4K? I don't think they were offering that in 2011 when I bought my high-end NEC! LOL! The darn thing is still going strong. Maybe someday I'll have an excuse to "upgrade".......
Pretty much my thought as well, I’m very happy with my 27” BenQ that isn’t a 4k monitor and does what I need both personally and for commercial projects. With over 5,000 members on these forums with a wide range of photography experience I doubt the majority is running 4k monitors.
 
@NorthernFocus Without accurately knowing the server software operating limits we can only speculate on what is happening.

But it would be interesting to know exactly what those limits are as I am able to upload files without error that are over the stated 2800 pixel(long side) x <2MB limit.
The 2800 pixel(long side) x <2MB limit is I suspect the display not an uploading limit.
What the procedure is for linked images is I do not know.

Once an image is uploaded successfully to the web site, the web site then does whatever it is set/programmed to do.
Maximum 2800pixels(long side) x <2MB with quality and/or other changes as needed/required to display?

Testing uploading limits on pixel size x <2MB, I get the "Oops! We ran into some problems" message with images over 5000 pixels(long side) x <2MB.
The test file/s pixel size/s were set using the IrfanView resize function on a NEF file then saved to a JPEG file with a file size limit of 1950kB.
 
4K? I don't think they were offering that in 2011 when I bought my high-end NEC! LOL! The darn thing is still going strong. Maybe someday I'll have an excuse to "upgrade".......
Check out sales throughout the year and well next Black Friday. You would be surprised what you find and the detail you will discover. Possibly what you are seeing as sharp in the Iguana is not so sharp on a 4K. With all the Z9 and lens you have, a new monitor will come it at the bottom of the cost pile. I hate giving up working things as well. My father was a POW so I waste nothing. What I do with these types of things is "re-home" them, so say a college kid in need or ....
 
Fair enough. What's the use case for 1200 px wide when it appears 2800 is much better, monitor allowing, and the 2mb limit is still there?
1200 actually looks better on "normal" HD monitors since there's no browser resizing. When I look at the comparisons here, on my HD monitor the lower res 1200px photos look better. However, when I look at the site on my 5K monitor, it's the higher res shots that look better. There's not really a great end-user solution, without a lot of confusing explanation that would probably just make the casual poster give up. I think the solution ultimately may be to have people upload higher res shots and have the site make smaller versions and than display the appropriate version based on the detected display.
 
Back
Top