This has happened a fair amount of times on this site for me.  I love checking out the pictures of trip reports and whatnot, but when they are posted en masse, and are absurdly large, it can not only take forever to load the page, but freeze up my browser window to the point that I need to close the entire program or even force restart my machine.  Some of the pictures I have to scroll back and forth to see the whole thing!
 
It could be the older computers I use at work where I'm looking at it, but just a suggestion for those who do... please resize your pictures before posting them.  I know a lot of digital cameras much like mine produce these huge high resolution shots when loaded from the memory stick/card/device/whatever.  It's the default, but it makes it very difficult to load on a website.
 
Hope this doesn't come off as complaining, but I'm sure others have this issue too.  Here's an awesome program I downloaded a while ago that comes in very handy:
 
http://bluefive.pair.com/pixresizer.htm
 
The best part about this program is it allows you to resize an entire folder of pictures at once.  Very convenient, especially if you load an entire roll of 80-100 photos, and don't want to go through each one resizing them in whatever photo software you have.

Not the first time this issue has been raised, but it's the first time in a while, I think. Might be worth some discussion to update and get a consensus. Or not.  
 
Quote from Bryan on Oct 7^th, 2009, 4:00pm:

I have to disagree with that characterization. Based on a quick survey it looks like the larger photos in recent trip reports have been in the range of 900 to 1024 pixels on the long side. By current equipment standards, I don't think that's "absurdly large." More on this below.
 
Quote:

Pixel dimensions alone aren't always the culprit in slow loading; it's also the amount of data in the file. If you edit to correct sharpness or color balance, the file gets bigger. Photoshop users should probably apply "Save for Web" to reduce file size after editing. But I have the impression that "Save for Web" tends to wash out color so I'm often guilty of skipping that step, and did skip it in my most recent trip report. I noticed that thread does load slowly, so sue me. It probably doesn't help that your browser is looking for the photo I deleted from the image host because it was too late to delete it from the source text. Watermarking also adds a tiny bit to file size.
 
Quote:

Bad Bryan!!  Yes. RAM is also an issue of course, and if your IT manager hasn't added RAM to the systems recently (or ever) that will hurt performance on an image-intensive page, especially if RAM was not upgraded at the time of purchase (basic configuration is rarely adequate and never for long).  
 
Quote:

But how big is too big? If there are enough others who speak up here about similar difficulties, maybe we should do a monitor resolution poll to determine a standard. Seriously.
 
Quote:

Yes, for example my pocket camera is set to the middle of its resolution range, producing images that are 2592 x 1944 pixels. That's almost three times the final size that I typically post. If we all posted our stuff exactly as it came out of our cameras, that WOULD be absurd.  
 
Quote:

I'm not so sure. See below.
 

Source page: http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_display.asp
• image hosted by
 
Quote:

I too enjoy solving problems with cheap shareware or freeware, but doesn't everyone who buys a digital camera get some kind of photo editing program with it? I seriously doubt any recent version of any such program lacks the ability to batch-resize. Of the photo processing applications I have on hand, at least three out of four (Photoshop Elements and Canon Image Browser, both of which were bundled with cameras I bought, and Apple's factory-installed iPhoto) can do it.  
 
[Edit] Might as well also note that photos can be batch-resized in the process of uploading them to an image hosting site, though with the disadvantage (at least in the case of ImageShack) of having to choose from a short menu of sizes that may not include exactly the size you would prefer.  
 
Bottom line: I think by now those of us who share pictures here know how to control their posted size. I post mine as large as I consider reasonable because for the typical outdoor scenic photo, bigger is better. Details are more easily appreciated and the viewer gets more of a feeling of being inside the scene.  
 
Quote from Tech on Oct 7^th, 2009, 9:11pm:

ImageShack also offers that option. The photo you chose to demonstrate it is a good example of why I don't do it. Very unsatisfying to look at a beautiful sunset that small—I want it to fill my screen. And I don't want to have to click and launch a new page (especially with all that Photobucket clutter on it) for every image that interests me in a large trip report; I'd rather just sit back and scroll. (Of course we could do an opinion poll on this, too.)

Fair points, all of them.  The only one I have to clarify with is screen resolution.  I just checked my work computer, and it's at a resolution of 1280x960, and what I meant is that I have to scroll within the post to see the pictures.  It's the smallest of issues among what I listed.
 
It's just frustrating to open a thread and be assaulted with 100 large pictures that bring the entire machine to a screeching halt.  Maybe it's on my end, who knows, but I suppose if the status quo is fine, my suggestion can be disregarded.
 
It's a pretty menial issue anyway, and probably something I can remember if I learn to just check the pictures when I get home on a more reliable machine.

Hmmmm. I totally understand the dilemma, but I personally enjoy seeing large format photos (because I'm a detail freak). What I'm not so keen on is scrolling down lots of photos in order to read the comments once they start rolling in.
 
Perhaps what would be best if people posted a link to their gallery of pics and/or use thumbnails to click on. Seems like most image hosts have that capability.

how did you do that tech? Thats a good idea.  
I am the one who that has happened to. Sometimes the pics are bigger then other times. Cam reco is set the same too. Why does this happen?m
 
 
Quote from Tech on Oct 7^th, 2009, 9:11pm:

Interesting...we keep our 22" widescreen monitor @ 1024 X 768 due to old eyes. We will normally reduce all digital photos to that resolution unless we have a shot that detail is important. If I post a photo, I reduce it to at least 1024 X 768 so most folks won't have to scroll. I assume that most folks are using a higher resolution today.
 
Ed

ok thanks. I had to check off that addition to a link on my photobucket as it was not there on mine. Thanks
 

Very cool. The photo editor is a relatively recent addition, isn't it?
 
I also just realized some of the features earlier this week.