cant post an image over 1meg

whats happening ?

It's all to do with the move to a new server.

I've had five or six posts disappear, then I made another two or three hours later... then they also disappeared,
but, hey ho, the first ones came back. lol

whos on base

Yes, 1Mb limit is quite... limiting. I struggled to post a relatively small 1400x1000 jpeg image.

it was 4meg

Until they fix the image size limit you can still post large pixel size images but with more jpeg compression.

This 3000px x 3000px image weighs in at ~937kB with 47% jpeg compression.

Image deleted to save space

Yes, same here. Even the post I made in the Bugs forum about my original posts going AWOL is now missing but the original post that went awol is now back.

Looks like there are still some stray 1's and 0's running loose on the new server.

It was, but I couldn't post an image >1Mb.

Yes, a few minutes ago I tried to upload an image weighing more than 1MB (1.47MB) I got an error saying it is too large. It didn't say what the limit was but trial and error told me the current limit is 1MB.

Impossible to enjoy or assess picture quality with so much jpeg compression.

David

I disagree. All images I attach to emails and post online have around 50% jpeg compression applied to them.

Testing a file over 1mb as a normal user

That seems to work.

So does that.

I confirm the limit is still 4m.

Yes, looks like the bug has been squashed.

This is image weighs 3.5MB

Image deleted to save space.

Feel free to compare the ~937kB and 3.5MB versions I have posted. On my screen they look just about indistinguishable, even zoomed in.

I dont know why this was deleted with ----------.

But if you insist on using 50% jpeg compression for everything, I dont see the point of asking for comments.

David

Because after serving their purpose I deleted the images I referred to.

You're just rinsing and repeating what you posted earlier.

All the images I have posted here on dprevived have close to 50% jpeg compression (+/- a bit) and the compressed and uncompressed versions are indistinguishable on my screen, even at 100%.

ROTFL YOU can talk!

Perhaps you need a better screen or new specs.

David

DOOMED

and by a person who LIES ABOUT EXPOSURE.

Overall assessment of tone and color doesn't require pixel-peeling. At discuss.pixls.us and dpreview I haven't posted a rendition larger than 500k. Usually use near-websize dimensions and jpeg quality=90.

Just reduce the image to 72 DPI and make it a jpeg and perhaps size the image under 10 x ? ..it works...No one needs anything large as it is after all, just the web

Nope 😊

Feel free to show where any of the images I have posted here on dprevived or anywhere else have been significantly affected by compressing the jpegs.

You mean PPI not DPI because I never print at less than 1440 DPI. I send images resampled to 360 PPI (my Epson printer's native printer resolution) for the paper size and set the printer to 1440 DPI.

For web display, PPI is meaningless because it is for web display a 1000px x 1200px will be the same size at 72 PPI, 200 PPI or any other PPI if the image file is not resampled.