Picture Upload Size Still 800x600px?

[dusty]

BTW Dusty where did you upload the oversize pix?

I uploaded the pictures (oversize or no) into the app that is resident with Windows 10.

[dusty]

2160x2160 4.7M 1:1

20181105_043311.jpg (1.29 MiB) Viewed 6665 times

3024x3024 9.1M 1:1

20181105_043229.jpg (1.26 MiB) Viewed 6665 times

2560x1440 3.7M 16:9

20181105_043157.jpg (1.93 MiB) Viewed 6665 times

4032x2268 9.1M 16:9

20181105_043104.jpg (2.1 MiB) Viewed 6665 times

[dusty]

When these all posted (one of which I thought would not) I returned to take two more pictures. The other two resolution settings on my camera.

The last picture (4038x3024 12M 4:3) would not post. I got an error message from the forum......(File too large: 20181105_050203.jpg). You see it here as PNG.

Capture The one that won't post..PNG (970.82 KiB) Viewed 6661 times

[garys]

If something has changed, it really doesn't matter. Anyone using a computer should have the basic skill of resizing a picture to the size needed for the forum. It takes only seconds to resize a picture in your computer. If that proves too difficult to learn, simply change the size of the pictures your camera takes so they are small to begin with.

[dusty]

If something has changed, it really doesn't matter. Anyone using a computer should have the basic skill of resizing a picture to the size needed for the forum. It takes only seconds to resize a picture in your computer. If that proves too difficult to learn, simply change the size of the pictures your camera takes so they are small to begin with.

Yes, you are correct HOWEVER with technology changes and Microsoft Windows changes occurring as often as they do...I am never surprised when something that used to work will work no more.

Every time Windows updates there is a new learning curve. With regards to photos and photo editing, Microsoft Paint has remained quite stable.

[garys]

I haven't suffered with Microsoft Windows since 1999 so my learning curve is a lot shorter. I switched to Linux back then and have been using Gimp all these years to resize my pictures. Gimp still does it the same way it did in 1999.

[BuckeyeDennis]

My go-to photo editor (Canon Digital Photo Professional) gives me independent control of output photo resolution (pixels per row/column) and "quality" (i.e. compression ratio). So I just did a test to see what the tradeoffs might be.

I took the pics below using using a 12 MP DSLR, at the max resolution of 4272 x 2848. The lens was a high-quality Canon EF85mm F/1.8 USM.

I saved the first pic at full resolution, but with the Quality set to 1 (on a scale of 1 - 10). The resulting file size is 1.42 MB, and the forum software uploaded it without complaint. Comparing it to the original photo on my desktop monitors, I can't detect any loss of resolution, even when zoomed way in. But the colors are definitely less vibrant than on the original image.

Frogs quality 1.JPG (2.39 MiB) Viewed 6634 times

For the second pic, I left the Quality setting at 10, and cropped the pic to get the file size below 2 MB. The image below wound up at 1.57 MB.

Frogs cropped.JPG (1.93 MiB) Viewed 6634 times

So it appears that the Forum software is enforcing a 2 MB file-size limit, but can currently handle as many pixels as I can muster. However, the colors on that cropped pic still look washed-out in comparison to the source cropped pic, so I suspect that the Forum software is compressing it some more.

[dusty]

I haven't suffered with Microsoft Windows since 1999 so my learning curve is a lot shorter. I switched to Linux back then and have been using Gimp all these years to resize my pictures. Gimp still does it the same way it did in 1999.

Maybe you could post a couple "high resolution" photos just to show what GIMP does for you. Some screen shots of the tools would be nice too.

My primary concern is that GIMP is "open source".

[BuckeyeDennis]

FWIW, I just downloaded the cropped frog photo from the forum, and compared it to the source cropped photo. The forum's version still has washed-out color, but the file size actually increased from 1.57 MB to 1.93 MB.

[JPG]

From the screen shots below. I conclude the forum software may be the 'culprit'. It is no longer considering pixel limits(conclusion).

All three are screen shots of forum posts with view image info function(Firefox).

It is possible image capture using SCNHUNT is scaling down to actual screen pixels. The source of scaled to .....?

However posted/uploaded pix are not displaying as very large images when read.

Plenty of suspects!

temp4.jpg (176.47 KiB) Viewed 6622 times

temp5.jpg (190.99 KiB) Viewed 6622 times

temp6.jpg (193.91 KiB) Viewed 6622 times