Gripe on Image Sizes

[California]

Whatever fix there was is not working. Something like 15Mb or more here:

Anyone familiar with tiger corps digger?

I picked this digger by tiger corps up recently at a sale. It attaches to one of their booms and is used for cleaning out ditches. It can do a mile of ditch per hour supposedly. Anyone know what something like this is worth, or rather how much it would cost new? I've had a hard time finding...

www.tractorbynet.com

The last picture is 5.4mb and it took 12 seconds to appear. I won't look at the other several photos. There can't be that much significant fine detail in the other five photos that justifies waiting about a minute to view them all.

Rural 10mbps DSL here. (And viewing on a laptop). Speedtest shows 9 mbps down, 0.94 up.

For the rare picture that deserves expanding to see detail, sure, post it.

But in general 1024 x 768 (or the next size larger) and under 1mb will convey what the poster wants to share.

Added:
Here's a photo cropped (not resized) to 1223 x 1090, 572k, that I prepared to send to my kids. They'll view it on their phones so it didn't need to be larger.

I got out my camera with 20x optical zoom when the weasel appeared last week. I waited, and he put on quite a show peeking out of a gopher burrow and finally running around. More pix on request ....

 

[ArlyA]

Few people here seem to know how to crop or adjust, there photo size and just post whatever pics there phone takes. Many aren't worth the wait so we don't open them.

 

[RalphVa]

In this post ( Forestry mulchers: drum or disk? ), there are two images. One is over 8m, the other is over 11M. There is simply no valid reason for images to be that large in file size. Most forums I've been part of limit upload sizes and won't accept images as large as those two. We need to remember that many people are still on low bandwidth connections, some still on various dialup plans, others on limited speed DSL or cellular programs. Others are on satellite or cable plans with daily bandwidth limits.

Consider imposing such upload limits here. 1Mb should be much more than sufficient.

I did a newsletter for 16 years. I always resized images down to 500 to 700 pixels wide, plenty good enough for viewing on the computer and typically 50 to 150k instead of the 4 to 12MB that pictures right off cameras come out as. With the big images, you have to scroll around to see them all.

 

[oosik]

I access TBN with my Apple computer. Hughes Net is my IP. I've never had a problem viewing an attachment of most any size. Adverse weather is my biggest bug-a-boo to opening and viewing attachments. Heck - it's my biggest problem to accessing the internet.

If I had to access TBN with my Apple iPhone - I most likely wouldn't. Too much futzing, too small a screen AND, for sure, the keyboard is just too small.

I wear reading glasses when on the computer. I have a magnifying glass when I use my iPhone. Yes, I can increase the type size - that falls under futzing.

 

[PILOON]

I'll add my gripe to large pics discussion as I'm on a very slow net.
The posters lose out as we simply avoid opening those links.