: Dear Gallery participants, : : How difficult is it to follow the simple submission guidelines for : the weekly gallery? They call for a maximum dimension of 700 pixels : on the longest side. This week 5 out of the 8 submissions are larger : than that. This makes it irritating to view your pictures on my : laptop. Yes, I know you think your photographic submission is the : greatest thing since pre-sliced cheese, so if you think it really : deserves to be seen at a larger size please provide a link in your : comments to your great masterpiece so we could view it in all its : magnificence elsewhere if we so choose. : : Thank you, It was laziness on my part but I have noted an increase in size amoung gallery submissions of late. I don't mind the landscapes going to 800 pixels but portraits do bother me a tad. 1000 pixels in height on a monitor set to 1600x1024 only *just* squeezes in. I did note that a lot of the images are very small though - that's been a nice change and Jims is positively tiny (big block of white :) Some browsers do occupy a lot of desktop real estate which minimises viewing area, but hitting F11 in IE gives kiosk mode - a much nicer way of looking at pictures on webpages IMO, but I don't know the apple implementation of kiosk view mode. nonetheless, you're right. it's bad form. as is posting to the forum in html, a 50kb with images review being notable. Looking at the guidelines I see "Guidelines: about 700 pixels in longer dimension and about 75-100K compressed size. If the image you send is larger than the guidelines, it may be reduced by gallery staff to meet this.. " and assumed that my image was _about_ 700 pixels (well, it was 14% bigger) and that if it was unacceptably large it would be resized. a possible solution If Andy would like, I can pop together a batch resizer set to a preferred pixel length, all images submitted can be dropped in a folder and the process run and in a few milliseconds they'll all be reduced to a standard size (smaller images will be untouched). karl shah-jenner
