Posted by Barbara Graham on September 13, 2017 at 2:10 PM
Which size image is the one you see when you click on the title of the image, and which size image is the one you see when you click on the image itself after clicking on the title? I think I've been confused all along even though there have been other threads about this.
And should we not be using 1600 but 1200 instead?
Why is it that when I click on the image the version I get is always smaller and very much better in every way, light, sharpness, detail, etc.?
I'm sorry to bring this up again. Someone posted a Flora image and everyone else says the larger version is the same size as the smaller version, but for me I get one size when I click on the image title and then a smaller size when I click on the image after clicking on the title. I don't understand.
Barbara, I suspect you're referring to this image here.....Thistle
Yes, they do seem to be the same size. I would suspect both images got posted at the 720 size. The reason I say that is you would receive an error if you tried to load a 1200-1600 on the second image being posted. Or if the person only loaded the 720 on the first image then the second one auto loads at the 720 by default, unless that has changed.
Normally, you would load a 1200-1600 long side and a maximum of 1meg on the first image upload. The second was optional, or could be in the past, to be manually uploaded at 720 long side and maximum of 500k.
I personally load a 1200-1400 long side at 900k first and then a 720 long side by 495k second. The file loads from my PS does not agree with NPN so requires just a tad smaller on the allowable file sizes.
When you click on the image or the larger version tab you should see the 1200-1600 size open up. In the case of the Thistle it looks to be all the same 720 I suspect. Hence the reason for comments mentioning the image appears to be all the same size.
After opening the Thistle image thread, I then clicked on the 'small' version image. After it displays, I inspected the html element. According to that, the image measures 674 x 800px, which is slightly larger. If I inspect the small version, I see that it measures 607 x 720px. Since the large version overlay does not resize the image (it displays the image at the uploaded size), Barb must have uploaded the 674 x 800px image. If she did not upload a small version, then the NPN script re-sized the image to be 720px on the long side, and is displayed as the 'small' version.
Just to clarify image and file sizes, the following is from the guidelines in the "Post a Photo" page...
Maximum allowable size is 1600 pixels/1 MB
...based on current screen resolution statistics we recommend sizing your photo to no larger than 800 pixels in height or 1200 pixels in width (whichever is largest) to help ensure best quality of presentation.
Upload a separate 720-pixel intermediate photo (500KB maximum) for best presentation quality (this file will override the one generated by the software)
Here is what you should see, Barbara...
If you click on the thumbnail image, you will see the 720px image.
After clicking the image title to open the image comment thread, the image you see is the 720px image.
If you click on the image in the comment thread, you will see a version in an overlay, (if an image was uploaded that is greater than 720px on the long side. If no large image was uploaded, you should see the 720px image).
If to click on the 'Enlarge' arrow beneath the small version, you will get a new browser tab with the large version displayed (if an image was uploaded that is greater than 720px on the long side. If no large image was uploaded, you should see the 720px image).
Why is it that when I click on the image the version I get is always smaller and very much better in every way, light, sharpness, detail, etc.?
That is odd, Barbara, so I need to ask some questions:
Is this occurrence recent, or has it been happening for some time?
Are you using a monitor to view the image, i.e. not a mobile device?
If so, what is the monitor's resolution in pixels, e.g. 1024x768?
Which browser(s) are you using?
If you are using different browsers, does this happen all of them, or just one?
If this is happening in only one browser, which one?
I have not seen this. If any of you are, please let us know. I can then forward info to Jim.
--P
Posted by Barbara Graham on September 13, 2017 at 7:17 PM
Why is it that when I click on the image the version I get is always smaller and very much better in every way, light, sharpness, detail, etc.?
That is odd, Barbara, so I need to ask some questions:
Is this occurrence recent, or has it been happening for some time?
Are you using a monitor to view the image, i.e. not a mobile device?
If so, what is the monitor's resolution in pixels, e.g. 1024x768?
Which browser(s) are you using?
If you are using different browsers, does this happen all of them, or just one?
If this is happening in only one browser, which one?
Thank you, Paul and Preston. It is the Thistle image that prompted me to post this, because this is the first time I have realized other people are not seeing the same thing I'm seeing.
1. It's not recent, but I do remember noticing it more markedly for several months now, maybe more.
2. I'm using a laptop with an external Samsung monitor that is NOT a widescreen monitor but is 18" diagonal, a SyncMaster 943. I don't think you could find out much about one of these monitors now.
3. The resolution as set now is 1280x1024. If I use the laptop monitor its resolution is 1600x900. Both are the "recommended" sizes. The laptop is an ASUS X755JA-DS71 17.3-Inch Core i7 Laptop, 1 TB, 8 GB RAM with Windows 10 that I bought in 2015.
4. I am using Firefox 55.0.3.
5 & 6. I just tried Chrome and it works correctly in Chrome. :( :( :( :( I really like Firefox.
I just tried it out on both monitors, external and laptop, and it is the same on both. In Firefox clicking the thumbnail gives me Size A, clicking the image title gives me Size B, which is much larger and less sharp, and then clicking the image itself gives me Size A again. In Chrome it works as it is supposed to work.
I tried it on Barb's image (I'm sorry, Barb) and then on the image before it of the Dahlia, and it does the same on both monitors for both images.
Wow, this makes me wonder what my images have been looking like to other people all this time! Thanks again, Paul and Preston. Preston, please let me know what you think I should do.
Thanks for doing some testing, and answering my questions.
I will send a link to this thread to Jim. He may have some ideas.
In the interim, you might try using Chrome for NPN until we have a better handle on what may be happening.
--P
Posted by Barbara Graham on September 13, 2017 at 8:34 PM
Okay, Preston, I'll do that. Thank you very much.
Posted by Barb Pflaum on September 13, 2017 at 8:44 PM
Wow! Now I'm even more confused! But according to what Preston wrote in his first reply to this thread, the way I understand it, my larger version was actually larger than the small one the way I thought it was, and it was the maximum size for best quality of presentation. I think the larger version, being only slightly larger was not noticeably larger to the viewer.
Anyway, thank you, Barbara, for posting to the forum about this and thank you, Preston, for your answer.
Posted by Barbara Graham on September 14, 2017 at 2:21 AM
Preston, something happened to Firefox tonight, and it still is the same version but it crashed and I'm having to rebuild it the way I want it, and now the images work the right way. So strange. So maybe ask Jim to hold off checking on it. I'll keep you posted if it changes back.
Posted by Dennis Plank on September 14, 2017 at 8:20 AM
Barbara. I'm far from an expert on this, but I think I've heard that if you click on the smaller image itself, rather than the "larger image" icon some (most?) Browsers will automatically resize the image to fit viewing space or something like that. It may be something you can change in your browser settings as well. If you use the larger image icon to get to it, it should display correctly. However you've been loading images works for me as they come across well.
The reason you might not want to use the 1600 pixel maximum is mostly the vertical dimension. For a full frame image, 1600 pixels wide gives you 1067 pixels tall. That wouldn't fit vertically on either of your monitors without some kind of resizing and the browser header and footer always take up a bunch of real estate in the vertical direction as well. When I post, I arbitrarily picked a maximum vertical dimension of 1000 pixels for the larger image which hopefully doesn't require people to scroll too much.
Discussion
8 repliesAnd should we not be using 1600 but 1200 instead?
Why is it that when I click on the image the version I get is always smaller and very much better in every way, light, sharpness, detail, etc.?
I'm sorry to bring this up again. Someone posted a Flora image and everyone else says the larger version is the same size as the smaller version, but for me I get one size when I click on the image title and then a smaller size when I click on the image after clicking on the title. I don't understand.
Yes, they do seem to be the same size. I would suspect both images got posted at the 720 size. The reason I say that is you would receive an error if you tried to load a 1200-1600 on the second image being posted. Or if the person only loaded the 720 on the first image then the second one auto loads at the 720 by default, unless that has changed.
Normally, you would load a 1200-1600 long side and a maximum of 1meg on the first image upload. The second was optional, or could be in the past, to be manually uploaded at 720 long side and maximum of 500k.
I personally load a 1200-1400 long side at 900k first and then a 720 long side by 495k second. The file loads from my PS does not agree with NPN so requires just a tad smaller on the allowable file sizes.
When you click on the image or the larger version tab you should see the 1200-1600 size open up. In the case of the Thistle it looks to be all the same 720 I suspect. Hence the reason for comments mentioning the image appears to be all the same size.
Just to clarify image and file sizes, the following is from the guidelines in the "Post a Photo" page... Here is what you should see, Barbara...
- If you click on the thumbnail image, you will see the 720px image.
- After clicking the image title to open the image comment thread, the image you see is the 720px image.
- If you click on the image in the comment thread, you will see a version in an overlay, (if an image was uploaded that is greater than 720px on the long side. If no large image was uploaded, you should see the 720px image).
- If to click on the 'Enlarge' arrow beneath the small version, you will get a new browser tab with the large version displayed (if an image was uploaded that is greater than 720px on the long side. If no large image was uploaded, you should see the 720px image).
That is odd, Barbara, so I need to ask some questions:- Is this occurrence recent, or has it been happening for some time?
- Are you using a monitor to view the image, i.e. not a mobile device?
- If so, what is the monitor's resolution in pixels, e.g. 1024x768?
- Which browser(s) are you using?
- If you are using different browsers, does this happen all of them, or just one?
- If this is happening in only one browser, which one?
I have not seen this. If any of you are, please let us know. I can then forward info to Jim.--P
- Is this occurrence recent, or has it been happening for some time?
- Are you using a monitor to view the image, i.e. not a mobile device?
- If so, what is the monitor's resolution in pixels, e.g. 1024x768?
- Which browser(s) are you using?
- If you are using different browsers, does this happen all of them, or just one?
- If this is happening in only one browser, which one?
Thank you, Paul and Preston. It is the Thistle image that prompted me to post this, because this is the first time I have realized other people are not seeing the same thing I'm seeing.1. It's not recent, but I do remember noticing it more markedly for several months now, maybe more.
2. I'm using a laptop with an external Samsung monitor that is NOT a widescreen monitor but is 18" diagonal, a SyncMaster 943. I don't think you could find out much about one of these monitors now.
3. The resolution as set now is 1280x1024. If I use the laptop monitor its resolution is 1600x900. Both are the "recommended" sizes. The laptop is an ASUS X755JA-DS71 17.3-Inch Core i7 Laptop, 1 TB, 8 GB RAM with Windows 10 that I bought in 2015.
4. I am using Firefox 55.0.3.
5 & 6. I just tried Chrome and it works correctly in Chrome. :( :( :( :( I really like Firefox.
I just tried it out on both monitors, external and laptop, and it is the same on both. In Firefox clicking the thumbnail gives me Size A, clicking the image title gives me Size B, which is much larger and less sharp, and then clicking the image itself gives me Size A again. In Chrome it works as it is supposed to work.
I tried it on Barb's image (I'm sorry, Barb) and then on the image before it of the Dahlia, and it does the same on both monitors for both images.
Wow, this makes me wonder what my images have been looking like to other people all this time! Thanks again, Paul and Preston. Preston, please let me know what you think I should do.
Thanks for doing some testing, and answering my questions.
I will send a link to this thread to Jim. He may have some ideas.
In the interim, you might try using Chrome for NPN until we have a better handle on what may be happening.
--P
Anyway, thank you, Barbara, for posting to the forum about this and thank you, Preston, for your answer.
The reason you might not want to use the 1600 pixel maximum is mostly the vertical dimension. For a full frame image, 1600 pixels wide gives you 1067 pixels tall. That wouldn't fit vertically on either of your monitors without some kind of resizing and the browser header and footer always take up a bunch of real estate in the vertical direction as well. When I post, I arbitrarily picked a maximum vertical dimension of 1000 pixels for the larger image which hopefully doesn't require people to scroll too much.
Hope this added something other than confusion.