next »

[Mike Kovacs]

Can you make the vertical at least 640 for us square shooters?

[nelsonfoto]

Sure thing, Mike. In fact, I just left it at 800x800. Will monitor this thread, so post some images here to see how the system responds (ie. is it giving error messages where it should when either spec is violated?) and to take feedback from youse all.

[nelsonfoto]

Guys - disregard my comment above about error messages. The SMF-ware resizes any image over the specified maximums. Example: the image below (see http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3198/2914326320_474d5c096e_o.jpg ) is 1024x763 as hosted at flickr, but our SMF accepts the embed URL and converts or otherwise restricts size. Looks like a clean routine to me.

[OpenWater]

Craig,
FWIW, I downloaded your flower image to look at its size.  It arrived on my computer as a 1024 x 683 @72dpi image.  So, does the SMF software resize images only for display?  I should also say that the original file - the one downloaded - is noticeably sharper and crisper than the one in the resized image in your post.  I take it from this that if we want to have images look as good as possible the original, posted image should be no larger than 800 x 800.  Correct?
Mike

[nelsonfoto]

 Mike - that would appear correct. Rather than resize, I think the SMF-ware merely forces the image to max-width and/or -height values as entered in the admin panel. That means that images larger than 800 wide or tall might appear less sharp than actual file at full size. To adjust, if this is an issue, embed a file neither wider nor taller than 800 pixels. My image above looks fine to my eyes, but I understand some might wish to share the sharpest version possible. If such is the case, include a standard, uncontained link, as did I, to the full-size image and mark it accordingly; ie., "link to full-size version."