What is meta? ×
Meta Stack Exchange is where users like you discuss bugs, features, and support issues that affect the software powering all 131 Stack Exchange communities.

Once conveniently posting photos at imgur.com was introduced I see many users uploading photos right from their camera. For example, here the second photo is 2,5K by 2K pixels and has size of 680K.

I can't see why this photo could not have been downscaled to much smaller size without any loss of useful information. Firefox downscales it to 630×471 before displaying it to me and it still looks great.

Downloading heavyweight images consumes a lot of traffic and that's an issue in many cases.

Could you please invent something that would encourage downscaling images?

share|improve this question
2  
I'm not sure the linking should be automatic, unless it is smart enough to see if something was linked manually already. Some users very nicely link cropped images to full versions, or link images to web pages. It would be nice if that is still possible. Also, in the majority of the cases you describe, nobody needs to click through anyhow? Related: Link embedded images to their URL. –  Arjan Sep 30 '11 at 7:32
    
@Arjan: Agreed. This is a good idea, not just for bandwidth reasons, but also for aesthetic reasons: things just look better with a few standard image sizes. But, whatever the details, it needs to preserve any link that's been manually added, only adding a link to a larger image if none is present. –  raxacoricofallapatorius Sep 30 '11 at 18:32
    
And, @raxacoricofallapatorius (thx, tab-completion!), also maybe only link if there's indeed a larger version. But I guess that's difficult to determine without actually evaluating the image or using some Imgur API. –  Arjan Sep 30 '11 at 18:46

3 Answers 3

up vote 59 down vote accepted

I'd still like the full-resolution photos available, but scaling down the image included in the post seems like a really good idea.

In fact, Imgur already automatically produces scaled-down versions of uploaded images. For your example image, I just need to add an l before the .jpg extension to get an image that's scaled to fit in 640x640: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8IlR6l.jpg

The image upload control should insert these instead of the full-sized images. It would be nice if they could be links to the full-sized images too.


Stack Exchange has started using some custom resizing behaviour for uploaded user avatars. This is currently applied when ?s=128 is appended to an image URL: http://i.stack.imgur.com/8IlR6.jpg?s=128. They could use similar custom behaviour to resize images to the max-width allowed on the current site instead of just using one of Imgur's built-in sizes.

share|improve this answer
12  
That sounds good - insert a scaled down image together with a link to a full-size one. –  sharptooth Aug 9 '11 at 8:04
1  
I agree: the image uploader should automate the down-sizing where needed. Make it automatic and part of the SE platform; otherwise if you make the user take extra steps, it becomes a barrier to uploading images (and improving questions and answers). –  Joe Bronikowski Aug 24 '11 at 11:28
2  
You can also use m and s to get even smaller images. –  ChrisF Oct 3 '11 at 20:23

I would just propose the even simpler solution of having ![description][X] automatically scale down to an image of some standard size and not link at all, leaving that to users to do manually as they wish.

I expect that more often than not, the downscaled image will be adequate for the intended purpose, and either something totally different, or nothing at all, is an appropriate target for a link. This solution also avoids hosting a bunch of huge images that are linked to for no really good reason.

share|improve this answer
    
So, basically only adding the l in the URL and have those who want more link to the original manually? Yes, easy, and nice! –  Arjan Sep 30 '11 at 18:48
    
@Arjan: Yes, that's all. That seems to be the use case to target. Those who want finer control will know how to get it (e.g. adding a link to whatever), and it doesn't punish those who already know what to do (crop, resize, link to external sites, etc.). Note that that a standard dimension is also a key part of the idea (to create an appealing layout). And while we're at it: the images should be centered. –  raxacoricofallapatorius Sep 30 '11 at 18:56

I'm not sure if a technical solution would do anything here. If the picture is too big, there's also a good possibility that whatever the user wanted to show us is somewhere in that picture. Just downscaling the image wouldn't help in this case, it needs to be cropped to the important parts.

A manual edit is in my opinion the best solution.

  • Crop (to the important part)
  • Resize (that it fits on the site but you don't lose too much detail)
  • Freehand Circles (important!)

You also should leave a comment, explaining that the user should not upload such big pictures. If such stuff is changed automatically, the users will keep doing it...but that's not a good thing.

share|improve this answer
10  
In real world here's what happens: cropping/resizing takes time and users just don't do it. About 95 percent of users just take a gazillion megapixels photo of a brick and upload it and say "I have a brick that looks like this" and a 400 by 300 image is more than enough. I believe only 5 percent of images require a hi-res version and those will be served when the user clicks onto the image. Anyway people who don't want the high-res version will not be forced to download it on opening the page. –  sharptooth Sep 30 '11 at 7:11
4  
cropping/resizing takes time and users just don't do it. I might be a little bit deadlocked in my attitude about that, so please excuse me...then the users need to learn to do it! Users need to be educated and taught about markdown, and we've seen that they can learn how to use it. Why not this, too? –  Time Traveling Bobby Sep 30 '11 at 7:23

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .