Oneputt wrote:Walter in my opinion that would be extremely unfair. Would you believe that there are some areas without access?
But the nonsense about file size is just that â€” A NONSENSE
Walter Glover wrote:I say if they won't shell out for broadband then stuff 'em; they can't be all that interested.
Sir Tristram wrote:I would argue that images should either be restricted to either
1. Pixel dimensions (<800 pixels)
2. File size. (<200 kb)
So your happy with a 1.5mb 800 pixel image?
Sir Tristram wrote:I have no problems with that either other than it really does wear thin having to manouver your brower window around the place to view the complete image. Not all of us have 1600x1200 monitors.
So for the majority of members who post here they may on average post say 4 images a month, some more some none. But I don't see the problem with resizing an image to less than 1024 on its longest side and less than 200kb. Your talking about 2mins if that per photo or 8 mins a month to comply with the forum.
Not a big ask I'd say.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests