Sizing files to post

[digital paradise]

I think there was something about this before. Posting at 1600 on the long side my files look bigger here than they did on POTN or other sites. I also noticed I can sharpen them more. Neither is an issue. I'm just wondering if I'm imaging things.

 

[West Coast Birder]

Weird. On a given display, 1600 pixels should be a fixed width in inches depending on your displays dpi. I can check, but I can’t think of a way that the site can make a difference. Will get back to you on this.

 

[digital paradise]

OK

 

[digital paradise]

This is not very scientific example and of no concern in any way. I took two screen shots. One at POTN and one here. I used the lower dock as a reference. From the initial opening the FoP looks bigger than POTN. If I'm wrong let me know.



The area between the red lines is wider. If you look at the sides where the files start/finish it is wider at FoP. It's not a scaling issue that needs to be corrected, it's just the site layout. I just noticed something looked a little different.

 

[Mr Chodes]

Try clicking on the spectacles on the POTN example. If the pic is now are the same size as on FOP, POTN is reducing size to fit the window, and spectacles show it at full size.

A 'Website Review' place rated POTN (with AMASS) as being very good with regards to displaying in a user friendly way across many platforms and devices.
That requires some scaling to be written into AMASS.

On FM recently, people were experimenting with the way photos are displayed. It was discovered that if the removed the 's' from https, it had a positive effect.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING YOU DO THAT, just mentioning.
On FM, it's also well known that images appear a little soft. "Click the Flickr link to see in full quality' or similar is a common comment and they are not taling about a larger sized photo, rather the same size photo with no softening. It's subtle, but noticeable.

 

[digital paradise]

Try clicking on the spectacles on the POTN example. If the pic is now are the same size as on FOP, POTN is reducing size to fit the window, and spectacles show it at full size.

A 'Website Review' place rated POTN (with AMASS) as being very good with regards to displaying in a user friendly way across many platforms and devices.
That requires some scaling to be written into AMASS.

On FM recently, people were experimenting with the way photos are displayed. It was discovered that if the removed the 's' from https, it had a positive effect.
I'M NOT SUGGESTING YOU DO THAT, just mentioning.
On FM, it's also well known that images appear a little soft. "Click the Flickr link to see in full quality' or similar is a common comment and they are not taling about a larger sized photo, rather the same size photo with no softening. It's subtle, but noticeable.

Thanks. I was aware of the glasses at POTN and I was going to mention that so thanks for doing that. It just seemed with the "first look" at FoP the files seemed to jump out at me. Now l know why.

Funny you mention FM. I had the hardest time trying to get my files to look good there. I had tried the Flickr approach and at times I couldn't tell the difference. I did ask about it few times there. At one time I was posting them as big as I could get away with. They were too big but looked better. Sometimes the site resized it and sometimes not. Seems to have improved lately and I'm not sure why. Maybe I'll try Flickr again. Thanks for the S suggestion.