Picture sizes

[Venturous Randy]

On some of the posts, the pictures are about the width of the page. I have put my pictures in the smaller format to get them to load, but I like the larger pictures a lot better. They are easier to see and not having to click on them to get them to load would be a plus. Is there any downside to having bigger pictures posted as far as memory or bandwidth usage?

What size are these larger pictures in pixals?

RandyA

[Freebird]

The max size for pictures to be uploaded is 640 x 480 and no more than 200,000 bytes. It is easy to get a 640 x 480 picture under the 200,000 byte limit if you use the correct software to resize them. If they are only slightly too big, the software will automatically resize them but if they are way too big then you will get an error, usually something like "invalid security token" if you try to upload them. Uploading them as an attachment will always result in them being shown as a thumbnail at the bottom of the post that must be clicked to see in full size.

 

The pictures that are shown in large size inline in a post are linked from elsewhere. You have to upload them to some other place and then link them here. In that case, they will still be resized so that they show up no larger than 640 x 480 but they will show that size and not as a thumbnail. They will have a bar across the top that tells you to click if you want to see it full size.

 

Yes, larger pictures do use more disk space and bandwidth and if they are linked so that they show inline within the post, they do make the page load slower. That can be a problem for people with slower connections. In that case, the loading speed is also influenced by the site where the pictures are stored. If that site is having any kind of problems then it will affect the loading speed of the page here.

[Freebird]

Here is an example of a picture that is 640 x 480 and only about 81,000 bytes.