The Energon Pub

Sorry if this has already been discussed...HOW IN THE HECK do you adjust your pics to fit in your postings? Everytime I post pics of my collection, they are ALWAYS half cut off!! What's up with this? It's very frustrating!! There HAS to be a way to manually adjust them to fit and show the ENTIRE PIC!!! Somebody PLEASE....tell me how to adjust them to fit!!!

Thanks! Frustrated in Texas!!!!

Nope. It's been discussed to death. The only sure-fire way is to post links to the images. (Which is significantly easier for people with slow connections)

Thanks for the info. Shadowman! Much appreciated!

I've learned that the only real way to post the whole picture is if the picture itself is no wider in size then 5.63 inches and no larger in hight then 6.65 inches.

What I've been doing to pictures that I'm posting is to first reduce the pic to close to the sizes I mention above with photo editor before I upload them to photobucket.

I would guess the same can be done with what ever photo hosting sight and photo editing program your useing.

It was difficult at first but I got it down to a science now.Here's a few examples.......

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I've learned that the only real way to post the whole picture is if the picture itself is no wider in size then 5.63 inches and no larger in hight then 6.65 inches.

Inches? Digital images are measured in pixels.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure height doesn't matter for non-sig images.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I've learned that the only real way to post the whole picture is if the picture itself is no wider in size then 5.63 inches and no larger in hight then 6.65 inches.

Inches? Digital images are measured in pixels.

Not to mention, I'm pretty sure height doesn't matter for non-sig images.

If you open a pic on your pc and right click and then hit properties you'll see measurments to the near right in pixels and to the far right in inches.

Althou you cant manimulate the inches section once you change the size of the pic useing photo editor you'll see that both the pixels and the inches have changed.

Take any photo you have and reduce it by 50% useing what ever photo editing program you have and you'll see that both inches and pixels have been altered to match the reduced size.

And hight and size do matter if the original scan is larger then premited with the new system here.

Heres an example before resizing it....


And after I resized it.


You can see the difference resizing it makes.And I guess the hight of the pic shows the same here but if you only resize the width of a pic with out changing the hight you'll end up with a oblong pic like these....



Instead of this....

You can also just upload the image through the attachment feature. It will then autosize to the window.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:If you open a pic on your pc and right click and then hit properties you'll see measurments to the near right in pixels and to the far right in inches.

No. No it doesn't. I'm not sure what OS you're using, but it doesn't do that on mine.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:Althou you cant manimulate the inches section once you change the size of the pic useing photo editor you'll see that both the pixels and the inches have changed.

Take any photo you have and reduce it by 50% useing what ever photo editing program you have and you'll see that both inches and pixels have been altered to match the reduced size.

And hight and size do matter if the original scan is larger then premited with the new system here.

Heres an example before resizing it....

pic
And after I resized it.
pic

You can see the difference resizing it makes.And I guess the hight of the pic shows the same here but if you only resize the width of a pic with out changing the hight you'll end up with a oblong pic like these....
pic
pic

Instead of this....
pic

I'm talking about resizing. If a picture is made with the width inside site limits, the height doesn't matter.

Shadowman wrote:No. No it doesn't. I'm not sure what OS you're using, but it doesn't do that on mine.

I'm useing Windows XP.

Shadowman wrote:I'm talking about resizing. If a picture is made with the width inside site limits, the height doesn't matter.

But if you have to resize it then you have to resize both width and hight.

You can just resize the width without the hight because you'll end up with a warped pic.

But if you use any halfway decent program, you can link the height and width together. Which in turn means changing one automatically scales the other one correctly.

And I just opened a pic up in fax viewer and right clicked it then properties. I have no inch size. It only shows file size. I've never once seen it show inch size unless I'm in photoshop and I have it set up to do so.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:No. No it doesn't. I'm not sure what OS you're using, but it doesn't do that on mine.

I'm useing Windows XP.

Shadowman wrote:I'm talking about resizing. If a picture is made with the width inside site limits, the height doesn't matter.

But if you have to resize it then you have to resize both width and hight.

You can just resize the width without the hight because you'll end up with a warped pic.

You still don't get it. The height is not set, and I'm not talking about resizing.

This conversation has, oddly enough, split quite a ways from what I was talking about, that being your blatantly wrong size limitations. I had Photoshop "Translate" it for me, and it came out to 405 pixels wide, 479 pixels tall, which is false, because my sig is 448 pixels wide. The height isn't set. Sigs aside, you can have an image be as tall as you want.

Iron-Man wrote:But if you use any halfway decent program, you can link the height and width together. Which in turn means changing one automatically scales the other one correctly.

And I just opened a pic up in fax viewer and right clicked it then properties. I have no inch size. It only shows file size. I've never once seen it show inch size unless I'm in photoshop and I have it set up to do so.

I never use it unless I'm printing something, and I need to do that maybe five times a year. When I get my own place to live, I'm probably just going to own a printer for the sake of owning a printer.

Shadowman wrote:You still don't get it. The height is not set, and I'm not talking about resizing.

This conversation has, oddly enough, split quite a ways from what I was talking about, that being your blatantly wrong size limitations. I had Photoshop "Translate" it for me, and it came out to 405 pixels wide, 479 pixels tall, which is false, because my sig is 448 pixels wide. The height isn't set. Sigs aside, you can have an image be as tall as you want.

I guess I dont get what your trying to tell me.But my info was not "blatantly wrong" as you just suggested.As I said before I resize my pio's to those sizes as a way to post the entire pic.

One way or the other you cant argue with the results.

Iron-Man wrote:But if you use any halfway decent program, you can link the height and width together. Which in turn means changing one automatically scales the other one correctly.

I gusee I'm not useing a "halfway decent program" then because I have to adjust each seperatley.

Iron-Man wrote:And I just opened a pic up in fax viewer and right clicked it then properties. I have no inch size. It only shows file size. I've never once seen it show inch size unless I'm in photoshop and I have it set up to do so.

I'm not useing photo shop I'm useing Microsoft photo editor....its the program that came with my XP bundle

Here's a pic before I resized it in both hight and width.


And heres what I see as for size'es.You can see pix's to the left and inches to the right.


Here's the same pic after I resized it.


And again the size info after I resized it you can see how the inches and pixels have changed.


And like I said you might not have to resize the hight but if I dont I end up with a pic thats oblonged.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:

Shadowman wrote:You still don't get it. The height is not set, and I'm not talking about resizing.

This conversation has, oddly enough, split quite a ways from what I was talking about, that being your blatantly wrong size limitations. I had Photoshop "Translate" it for me, and it came out to 405 pixels wide, 479 pixels tall, which is false, because my sig is 448 pixels wide. The height isn't set. Sigs aside, you can have an image be as tall as you want.

I guess I dont get what your trying to tell me.But my info was not "blatantly wrong" as you just suggested.As I said before I resize my pio's to those sizes as a way to post the entire pic.

One way or the other you cant argue with the results.

Yes, I can. Very easily. Like how my sig is wider than what you said is the limit.

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:And like I said you might not have to resize the hight but if I dont I end up with a pic thats oblonged.

I'm. Not. Talking. About. Resizing. And oblong means egg-shaped.

I'm trying to explain that the resolutions you gave as the limit are wrong. Specifically the ones from this:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I've learned that the only real way to post the whole picture is if the picture itself is no wider in size then 5.63 inches and no larger in hight then 6.65 inches.

You're basically saying that an image can't go past 405 pixels and 479 pixels. I'm not talking about resizing, I'm talking about you being flat-out WRONG.

Shadowman wrote:Yes, I can. Very easily. Like how my sig is wider than what you said is the limit.

First I never said it was a limit.What I said as you quoted before was that I learned that the only way to insure that the whole pic shows up hear was to reduce it to the sizes I posted earlier.

And by the way I'm not sure what size your sig shows up to on your end but I just downloaded your sig from photobucket to my pc for a refrance in size and it shows up on my end as 448 pixiles width and 288 pixels in hight which translates into inches as 4.67 in width and 3.00 in hight.

So unless theres some operating difference going on here I dont see how your sig is bigger then the size I indicated.

Photobucket does re-size some pics when there uploaded to the site so maybe thats why your pic is showing up smaller on my end but if thats not the reason I'm lost.

Shadowman wrote:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:And like I said you might not have to resize the hight but if I dont I end up with a pic thats oblonged.

I'm. Not. Talking. About. Resizing. And oblong means egg-shaped.

I'm trying to explain that the resolutions you gave as the limit are wrong. Specifically the ones from this:

sto_vo_kor_2000 wrote:I've learned that the only real way to post the whole picture is if the picture itself is no wider in size then 5.63 inches and no larger in hight then 6.65 inches.

You're basically saying that an image can't go past 405 pixels and 479 pixels. I'm not talking about resizing, I'm talking about you being flat-out WRONG.

How am I saying you cant go past 405 pixels and 479 pixels when the numbers I posted 5.63 inches width translates roughly into pixels as 540 pixels width....at least in the pic I posted above.Here it is again.

540 pixels equals 5.63 inches. Where are you getting that I said you cant go past 405 pixels and 479 pixels????

I made no mention of pixels meserments because they tend to differ depending on the quality of the image.Talking in pixels always confuse me so I stick to inches.Much easier for my mind to wrap around.

Oh and by the way an egg may be oblong in shape but oblong is not egg shaped nor does it mean egg shaped.

Oblong is a word that is used to describe any object that is longer in one of its dimensions then it is in its other dimensions.Oblong shapes are square or circular in form but with one of its dimensions elongated.Oblong objects are a geometrical figure ar longer than they are wide.

Here's the deffinition of the word "Oblong".
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/oblong
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/oblong

So yes an egg is oblong but so is a tree leaf or a movie DVD box or a door or a book.....in short a rectangle is an oblong shape.

Thanks for trying to correct me but next time you might want to double check your facts before trying.

When it comes to web graphics, pixels are the only consistent way to measure an image. Size in inches or cm are print sizes. Those can vary wildly depending on the quality of the print. I can have an image that is 540 pixels wide get translated as 1.5 inches wide. Unless you always make sure your image has a resolution of 72dpi, you could post one that is "5.63 inches" and end up with it being very tiny or impossibly huge.
Just right click on any image on the site and select properties. You will see a pixel width, not inch width. The safe size for an image is a tiny 468 pixels wide. The same width as the BBTS banner above. Height doesn't matter.
So your options are these:
1) Leave your images "half cut off" and force people to right-click "view"
2) Make your image tiny to fit the space.
3) Add it as an attachment.
4) Make it a link.
5) Refrain from posting until it is fixed.