So doesn’t that beg the question then that the preset should create a two megabyte image with the largest dimensions possible?
Last edited:
Best Downsizing procedures to post photos on BC Forums????
- Thread starter Highbow
- Start date
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).
The above is why I gave up trying to post perfect images for web viewing a long time ago. There are just too many variables involved. I do care a lot about what my images look like on my system (calibration, etc), but when it comes to uploading I try to follow the suggested parameters and cross my fingers. Printing is another matter entirely.
In which case other users will only see part of the image without scrolling up and down and side to side. Not all browsers or monitors support on the fly resizing and though it's usually not a problem when I use my 27" photo editing monitor, when I view the forums on my MacBook Pro via Safari large images can't be viewed even when I zoom my browser out as far as it will go.
That's basically the trouble with posting images on the web, the viewers at the far end use a variety of devices on different operating systems using different browsers and different monitors and it's very hard to find an image size in pixels that works for everyone. Allow larger sizes and some viewers can't actually see the entire photo without scrolling which makes it very tough to evaluate composition and the overall image. Limit image size in pixels as has been historically done here and everyone can see all of the image but some using higher pixel resolution monitors will see small images or those with on the fly resizing may see a screen filling image that is soft or has other artifacts.
Assuming you meant two megabytes. I think but am not 100% sure that the file size at different levels of jpeg quality can vary depending on what the compression algorithm has to work with. I think a shot with a big field of blue sky will have a smaller file size than something with intricate detail. so a human has to look at the resulting file size at different quality settings. I know photoshop lets you do this easily, I'm not sure about lightroom.
If the only consideration is displaying the best possible image maybe so. Some people don't want to upload high resolution images for security/copyright reasons.
It appears that the forum software here limits the image size to the width of the page(i.e. something less than 1400px per Steve). If the image is uploaded at higher rez clicking on it opens the image. If the image is linked then clicking on it opens the site where the linked image resides.
Per the second half the quote above this is an issue with too many variables to tackle. It's unfortunate that not everyone understands this issue and some have unrealistic expectations about how images appear on line versus on their computer at home. I didn't pay that much attention until I got a new high rez laptop. It's been an education.
Yes on the megabytes. Fixed the post.
Won't most browsers show the image in the max width for the site. That's what this forum did to my linked image. Not sure what it does to uploaded images.
Most of us on this forum have at least some form of HD monitor.
Finally isn't 2mb better than resizing to 1200 wide if the forum is adjusting for the width?
@Steve and everyone else
I've got a Dell XPS 15 - a wide gamut Windows 11 laptop - and I'm generally using Chrome. My recommended display settings are 1980 x 1200. My monitor with a normal view is 13.25 inches wide by 8.25 inches high. The portion of the Backcountry site that is visible (excluding tool bars and menus on the top and bottom) is 13.25 wide and 6 5/8 high.
Looking at the owl images above, the third image - 1200 pixels wide - takes up the entire width of the Forum post area or 11 1/4 x 5 5/8. I only have the column for the individual making the post and the small scroll and borders. The last image takes exactly the same space and I can see no difference at all in resolution or detail compared to the third image.
I compared the original post dimensions above with the amount of the screen or display area measured in inches. Looking at the first image, I have measurements of 7 3/8 x 3 3/4 inches - which translates to 98 pixels per inch. The second image is displayed 10 inches wide or 96 pixels per inch. The third image seems to be downsized slightly as it is 11.25 inches wide (my screen maximum for this page) or 107 pixels per inch. The fourth image is the same width at 11.25 inches or 170 pixels per inch, so my display is showing a downsized version.
So it seems to me the native resolution of the website image as displayed on my 1980 x 1200 display is around 1080 pixels - not the 1400 mentioned above. That suggests the optimum size is 1080 pixels wide, and anything larger is automatically downsized by the forum posting software. That's based on physical measurements for my laptop.
If that's the case, anything outside of 1080 pixels wide is being modified. So here is another test. A sharp image downsized to 1080 pixels and the highest quality setting, and another image output at 1600 pixels which in theory should work. I'm letting Lightroom sharpen the images for Screen with Low Export sharpening.
My take on my monitor is I have a little more detail in the eyering feathers on the 1600pixel image and letting the system resize it. But the size of the image on the web page is the same on my monitor. I'm losing a little quality on both images compared to what I see on my laptop. When I save the uploaded version back to my laptop, it looks identical and is identical in size.
This is 1080 and 960 Kb.
This is 1600 pixels wide - the maximum size I could upload and stay within the 2 MB limit without changing quality. This is 1.9 MB.
I've got a Dell XPS 15 - a wide gamut Windows 11 laptop - and I'm generally using Chrome. My recommended display settings are 1980 x 1200. My monitor with a normal view is 13.25 inches wide by 8.25 inches high. The portion of the Backcountry site that is visible (excluding tool bars and menus on the top and bottom) is 13.25 wide and 6 5/8 high.
Looking at the owl images above, the third image - 1200 pixels wide - takes up the entire width of the Forum post area or 11 1/4 x 5 5/8. I only have the column for the individual making the post and the small scroll and borders. The last image takes exactly the same space and I can see no difference at all in resolution or detail compared to the third image.
I compared the original post dimensions above with the amount of the screen or display area measured in inches. Looking at the first image, I have measurements of 7 3/8 x 3 3/4 inches - which translates to 98 pixels per inch. The second image is displayed 10 inches wide or 96 pixels per inch. The third image seems to be downsized slightly as it is 11.25 inches wide (my screen maximum for this page) or 107 pixels per inch. The fourth image is the same width at 11.25 inches or 170 pixels per inch, so my display is showing a downsized version.
So it seems to me the native resolution of the website image as displayed on my 1980 x 1200 display is around 1080 pixels - not the 1400 mentioned above. That suggests the optimum size is 1080 pixels wide, and anything larger is automatically downsized by the forum posting software. That's based on physical measurements for my laptop.
If that's the case, anything outside of 1080 pixels wide is being modified. So here is another test. A sharp image downsized to 1080 pixels and the highest quality setting, and another image output at 1600 pixels which in theory should work. I'm letting Lightroom sharpen the images for Screen with Low Export sharpening.
My take on my monitor is I have a little more detail in the eyering feathers on the 1600pixel image and letting the system resize it. But the size of the image on the web page is the same on my monitor. I'm losing a little quality on both images compared to what I see on my laptop. When I save the uploaded version back to my laptop, it looks identical and is identical in size.
This is 1080 and 960 Kb.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
This is 1600 pixels wide - the maximum size I could upload and stay within the 2 MB limit without changing quality. This is 1.9 MB.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Last edited:
Displays differently on my laptop. Apparently the web page/browser recognized monitor resolution and adjusts. Tried to take screenshots and upload but they are too large and won't load. The 1080p image leaves quite a bit of room at right side of the page. The 1600 fills it. Also what you described regarding how the owl pics display on your laptop is not how they appear on min. The only one that fills the web page on my laptop is the 1920p owl image(last one).
FWIW......the second blue bird image is only about 5% larger on my 30" NEC. The second image fills the viewing area. The second image is a bit sharper.
It’s becoming very clear to me that must do some adjustments in order to save the correct size for posting on here.
Interesting. For the 2 bird images, the first one is sharper in my browser (firefox), but the second one enlarges more and so appears sharper when I click on them. Just too many variables. 
Is the ppi in both cases 100? For posting images here, I've been re-setting ppi to 100, then 1200 on the longest side.
Another example.....check out THIS thread...... where I had to down size a LOT to get BCG to accept it!!!!
"(For some reason, I had to down size the image to 950 x 750 @ 92 resolution, jpg setting at 10 - before I could upload it......)"
"(For some reason, I had to down size the image to 950 x 750 @ 92 resolution, jpg setting at 10 - before I could upload it......)"
Karen that was one of the images that I said I wish I could see the sharper image.
What if you export for 2mb size instead of a width? Maybe post comparisons here. I will add the Ibis above at 2mb. Actually it came out 1.6mb with all pixels. Maybe that just means more compression and it doesn't work. We shall see.
EDIT - SEEMS TO ME IT HELPED TO USE 2MB AS LIMIT AND NOT WIDTH.
ppi doesn't matter.
Lot of detail in that image. Dropping the jpeg quality to 80 percent helps a lot.
I used pixels and ignored PPI. I was using 360 - the value I use for printing. But it really only matters if your dimensions are based on inches. In my test, I saw no difference at all between 360 PPI and 100 PPI if the pixels were unchanged. It should not matter if the number of pixels is correct.
Exactly the dpi or ppi exif settings don't influence how an image displays on a screen at all, just the pixel dimensions. The DPI/PPI settings are important for printing but not for screen use.
I think that I have it figured out for now. I just had to make the setting as Steve recommended in my export process. The 1980 x 1200 and 300 pixel per inch gives me what you see below, Please be honest is the quality alright ? I edit on a 27 inch HP screen for my desktop machine and sometimes my old eyes get too tired to pickup on some items.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Not sure I fully understand your question? If you are referring to the LR export portion of the process then , I had to Image Sizing, check Resize to Fit, Dimensions, and change inches to pixels. Then to the right under resolution I put 300 pixels per inch. Not I got it all correctly done but my file size is now 1.8 to 1.9 mb
so what if you resize without the dimensions and just let it limit the file size to 2mb?
1200px
1920px
2MB
2MB linked
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
1920px
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
2MB
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
2MB linked
Last edited:
I just had a photo with a lot of variety of brush, trees , sage in the area surrounding this elk, at 1980 x1200 it exported at 2.77mb , I changed my Long Edge to 1200 pixels and exported this resulting 1.38mb.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
The worry with that approach is I don't know whether they reduce the file size based on quality or compression. If you reduce it based on quality, it's probably okay down to 70% with a web sized file. If you reduce based on compression, you risk compression artifacts. Normally a modest reduction in quality to around 80% is perfectly fine for web use. On the other hand, it is quick.
I tested the image I posted earlier. All 1920 on the long side.
100% = 2.52 MB
90% = 1.53 MB
80% = 1.10
File limit 1.990 MB = 1.52 MB
File sized to 3840 on long side
File limit 1.990 MB = 1.63 MB
In this last case, the file was much larger - 9.7 megapixels instead of 2.4 MP. With a common viewing size or output, they look very similar, but a 100% view is much more magnified. This site would downsize the file.
So bottom line - it makes very little difference if you have the right output size.
@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?