What is the "accepted" size for images?

iBookG4user

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 27, 2006
6,596
2
Seattle, WA
I uploaded a couple images to imageshack at 800 x 600 which is a very reasonable resolution that even very old Macs can display without having to have side scroll bars. And these images got [ timg]'d, although I saw an image that had a width of 720 go un[ timg]'d. So, what is the accepted size? I don't like the size of [ timg] images, they are too small IMO.
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,500
1,784
I uploaded a couple images to imageshack at 800 x 600 which is a very reasonable resolution that even very old Macs can display without having to have side scroll bars. And these images got [ timg]'d, although I saw an image that had a width of 720 go un[ timg]'d. So, what is the accepted size? I don't like the size of [ timg] images, they are too small IMO.
if you click on the timg links they open as full size.

arn
 

arn

macrumors god
Staff member
Apr 9, 2001
14,500
1,784
I'm aware of that, but it's just more convenient to have them load full size when it loads the page.
I don't know if there's a specific rule. But 800x600 does seem too big. I don't know how big a window you browse in, but you have to take into account the post-bit to the left of each post.

arn
 

EricNau

Moderator emeritus
Apr 27, 2005
10,648
31
San Francisco, CA
Personally, I prefer the smaller images.

Large pictures can give the forum a very untidy feel, and worse (once they got too big), can throw the whole page's format out of whack.
 

iBookG4user

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 27, 2006
6,596
2
Seattle, WA
I don't know if there's a specific rule. But 800x600 does seem too big. I don't know how big a window you browse in, but you have to take into account the post-bit to the left of each post.

arn
The window I browse in is about 1350 pixels wide. Is 640 x 480 too big also?
 

dcv

macrumors G3
May 24, 2005
8,021
1
The window I browse in is about 1350 pixels wide. Is 640 x 480 too big also?
Well if you were still an iBook G4 user ;) you wouldn't be doing that, so please keep smaller notebooks in mind when posting large photos! Most people, even with larger notebooks, browse in a much smaller window than that as there's no reason to need such a wide space for most sites.
 

mad jew

Moderator emeritus
Apr 3, 2004
32,199
6
Adelaide, Australia
On this subject, is there a possibility of getting the TIMG tags increased by 100 pixels or so? I agree that they're a little small, no matter which screen I'm using. :)
 
L

Lau

Guest
Well if you were still an iBook G4 user ;) you wouldn't be doing that, so please keep smaller notebooks in mind when posting large photos! Most people, even with larger notebooks, browse in a much smaller window than that as there's no reason to need such a wide space for most sites.
As an iBook G4 user I agree! :p I don't maximise my browser to fill full screen, so it's probably 800px wide at most, and then there's all the avatar stuff down the side. Using this highly scientific method, I tested it to conclude that 500, maybe 550 max is about right as far as I'm concerned.

Picture 3.png
(Click for larger ;))

I think the point is as well is that you assume that everyone wants to see your image full size – in a thread, say, about iPhone cases or Mac setups I may only be interested in one case or setup, and so I'll click the one I'm interested in. If all the others are smaller, that's a good thing.
 

devilot

Moderator emeritus
May 1, 2005
15,588
2
And these images got 'd, although I saw an image that had a width of 720 go un[img]'d. So, what is the accepted size? [/QUOTE] The accepted size? Just overall browseability of the forums. And reports. Not every mod sees every thread and post. If a post gets reported and a [img] seems warranted, then it gets edited. If I happen to address that report and notice large images above or below the one that got reported, then I'll go ahead and address those as well.

Note: The full image should have have been uploaded and then scaled down by your browser as Arn [URL="http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=3684687&postcount=6"]notes here[/URL]. So it really shouldn't take long upon clicking on a [img] to make it full size.

[quote="EricNau, post: 3920511"]Personally, I prefer the smaller images.

Large pictures can give the forum a very untidy feel, and worse (once they got too big), can throw the whole page's format out of whack.[/QUOTE]Yup. That's how I feel as well. Take for example the [URL="http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=322601"]current desktops[/URL] thread-- to me, it seems so much easier to look through and makes it that much more enjoyable.

And count me in as another sympathizer of small-notebook users. :p
 

ErikCLDR

macrumors 68000
Jan 14, 2007
1,795
0
640 x 480 I think is a good size. I have a 12" powerbook and I think its the perfect size picture- Not big enough that I have to scroll around, or wait for the pics to load, but so small I can't see them. It fits the width of the page quite well too (on my computer). I think 640x480 or attached in the attacher thing is good.

 

Jaffa Cake

macrumors Core
Aug 1, 2004
19,802
6
The City of Culture, Englandshire
The smaller thumbnails are also quicker to load for those of us who still have dial-up connections. I actually tend to give up on some of the picture threads when they start getting filled with a lot of oversized images as it just takes too long to browse through them.

I also have a MacBook as well, so the thumbnail approach is advantageous from the size point of view too. Come to think of it, how do other web capable devices with much smaller screens cope – I'm thinking of the iPhone in particular?
 

iBookG4user

macrumors 604
Original poster
Jun 27, 2006
6,596
2
Seattle, WA
The smaller thumbnails are also quicker to load for those of us who still have dial-up connections. I actually tend to give up on some of the picture threads when they start getting filled with a lot of oversized images as it just takes too long to browse through them.

I also have a MacBook as well, so the thumbnail approach is advantageous from the size point of view too. Come to think of it, how do other web capable devices with much smaller screens cope – I'm thinking of the iPhone in particular?
On my iPhone the [ timg] images are especially too small. I took an example of a regular and a [ timg] image on my iPhone for comparison. Anything like 800 x 600 or 640 x 480 gets scaled to fit perfectly on my iPhone screen so they look great, but the [ timg] ones get scaled very tiny.
 

Attachments

tobefirst

macrumors 601
Jan 24, 2005
4,066
1,168
St. Louis, MO
I'm in agreement with mad jew, on this one. I do see the point of the TIMG tag, but I think that it could be a little bit bigger and still be equally effective.
 

iBlue

macrumors Core
Mar 17, 2005
19,182
15
London, England
The smaller thumbnails are also quicker to load for those of us who still have dial-up connections. I actually tend to give up on some of the picture threads when they start getting filled with a lot of oversized images as it just takes too long to browse through them....
Actually they aren't proper thumbnails in that sense. It shrinks the dimensions shown, not the file size. The TIMG is more for appearance sake, it does not help page load times.
 

Jaffa Cake

macrumors Core
Aug 1, 2004
19,802
6
The City of Culture, Englandshire
*cough*fewpostsup*cough*
Oh yes... :D :eek:

I hadn't seen your earlier post, to be honest – I think you posted in the time between me opening the thread up and submitting my own reply. One of the perils of navigating the forums using tabbed browsing I suppose, especially if I'm also slowed down by trying to open another page at the same time that has a load of unthumbnailed images in it. ;)