# Avatar file size



## Nick

Would it be possible to increase the maximum file size for avatars a little bit? Maybe we could have 8 KB or 10 KB?


----------



## vachecow

Just curious........did we ever get images in signatures?
    And yet agian, I don't think this is a bad idea>>>>>do you have something particular in mind?


----------



## Artrella

Nick said:
			
		

> Would it be possible to increase the maximum file size for avatars a little bit? Maybe we could have 8 KB or 10 KB?




That would be great!!!


----------



## beigatti

Also, I wonder where I can get images this small?  Is there a place on the web to download these?


Jo-Ann


----------



## belén

What I did was to write in the google images section the name of whatever object I was searching for (in my case, a duck) + the number 6 so that many of the images that came up had that size.
Good luck
Be


----------



## vachecow

Thats exactly what I did


----------



## maxiogee

Hi there O wise ones,

Is there any great reason why avatars are limited to 80x80?
If not, would it be possible to increase the permitted size to 100x100? This would allow for a 56% increase in the size of the image, and would allow for greater detail to be displayed.
I, and at least one other forer@ I know of, have recently been thwarted in attempting to display certain finely-detailed images. No, not my _froggy_ 
There would (should?) be no need to increase the limit on the file-size, which could remain at 2k.


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Hi there O wise ones,
> 
> Is there any great reason why avatars are limited to 80x80?
> If not, would it be possible to increase the permitted size to 100x100? This would allow for a 56% increase in the size of the image, and would allow for greater detail to be displayed.
> I, and at least one other forer@ I know of, have recently been thwarted in attempting to display certain finely-detailed images. No, not my _froggy_
> There would (should?) be no need to increase the limit on the file-size, which could remain at 2k.


Although, would it be possible to have little bit extra size, or would it put too much strain on the server? Not something worth compromising the speed of the server for certainly but even a little more would be good.


----------



## Nunty

I second the suggestion! You have no idea what a wonderful avatar you're missing...


----------



## djchak

by keeping avatar size so small, it's hindering the personal expression of board members.... personally, I don't see why the rule exists.


----------



## moodywop

I, too, second Tony's suggestion. I was lucky enough to have a helpful computer savvy forer@ help me with my avatar, but I hear quite a few people are having problems because of the 80x80 limit.


----------



## french4beth

I would agree - if a size increase doesn't affect the forums, could we get an increase? We have so many talented, creative folks here... Upgrade, please?


----------



## moura

This a request I would also make. It has been kind of difficult to put some of my avatars. I think I caught the system "entertained" when I managed to put my horse, after several attempts 

And the WR pages would be even become a lot more coloured


----------



## Cereth

Thank you Tony for posting this , I thought I was the only one who thought avatar size was so unconvenient..I can´t display my whole cat gallery!!!!!

Please upgrade!!


----------



## LV4-26

maxiogee said:
			
		

> here would (should?) be no need to increase the limit on the file-size, which could remain at 2k.


Funny, I've got much more problem with keeping my avatar images under 2k. I've got to reduce them to 60x60 or something.


----------



## Dr. Quizá

LV4-26 said:
			
		

> Funny, I've got much more problem with keeping my avatar images under 2k. I've got to reduce them to 60x60 or something.



Same here. I'd prefer heavier than bigger avatars. A 2KB file is virtually downloaded in 0.01s with a 2Mb line and I had problems finding such light images despite I'm experienced editing and optimizing images.


----------



## ILT

Actually, the problem is that the pages will turn very much slowed (I'm not sure about this grammar construction, so please forgive me if I'm wrong) for those using a dial-up connection. This has been discussed before, let me find the thread.

Check these threads, please:

server problems and avatars
uploading pictures/avatars
tamaño de los avatares

Saludos


----------



## Dr. Quizá

Well, avatars can be hidden from the Control Panel if they bother, and good web browsers like Opera do a nice image and cache management. Plus, if it were possible to use linked avatars instead of uploaded avatars the server load would be lesser.

I'm a user of a bunch of forums where I've always supported light avatars and signatures, but I find WR to be exaggerated regarding to this.


----------



## la reine victoria

What a good suggestion Tony.  I'm all in favour of a bigger one, and hope it will be possible.  







LRV


----------



## panjabigator

I too agree.  Bigger avatars, same size restrictions.  And I agree with Moura when she said 





> And the WR pages would be even become a lot more coloured


----------



## lazarus1907

This time I have to agree with maxiogee!

I have managed to create larger images (100x100 and above) without even exceeding the 2 kB limit, with an obvious improvement in the quality and the visual resolution. This would have not affected the server's bandwidth.

Other alternatives, like external pictures avatars could be considered as well.

Look at my avatar: You cannot see the freckle in the face of the guy. That's pretty bad!


----------



## timpeac

If it's not possible to have larger files - slightly bigger avatars in size could still be possible (if the file is not larger in size).

Like LV and others I find it really really difficult to get the avatar down to size. Could I ask Moodywop and others what they do to keep such complicated avatars under the limit?


----------



## .   1

I also support an increase in size if there is no downside.
The only limit I have read in this thread is that dial-up access will be slowed (even further) if the avatar increases in size but that this can be fixed by each dial-up member adjusting their settings.
I would be fascinated to see what face each forer@ gives us each day with a little more clarity.

.,,


----------



## Dr. Quizá

A poll on users connection speed may be useful, don't you think?



			
				lazarus1907 said:
			
		

> Look at my avatar: You cannot see the freckle in the face of the guy. That's pretty bad!



Acabo de ver la firma que le ha cascado al tío en todo el pecho


----------



## panjandrum

I was once a dial-up user, and the point about slow-speed lines is almost good.
But then I found how not to download avatars when on the dial-up connection so the problem vanished.

I have had some problems with some images I might have wanted as an avatar. I'd get a better picture with more pixels.

But it's no big deal. If the techy viewpoint indicates that better avatars would come at the expense of some more desirable attribute, there would be no context for me.

On the other hand, if a change in avatar size would increase the size of the post header on the screen I would not support it. I'm all for judicious use of white space to clearly set out the argument, but the post header is not a very important part of the message.

Anyone who has had to use an inferior keyboard/mouse (as for example in one of those hospital bedside devices) will understand my petulant point.


----------



## moodywop

timpeac said:
			
		

> Like LV and others I find it really really difficult to get the avatar down to size. Could I ask Moodywop and others what they do to keep such complicated avatars under the limit?


 
Well, Tim, I'm afraid the forer@ who helped me with my avatar won't have his/her name divulged.

However my other extremely patient fixer of all computer problems has helped you in the past, since you acknowledged his help once :



			
				timpeac said:
			
		

> I hope this pic is clearer. Thanks for the help alfry.


 
He's on vacation enjoying his beautiful new baby but he gets online for a few minutes every day.


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:
			
		

> If it's not possible to have larger files - slightly bigger avatars in size could still be possible (if the file is not larger in size).
> 
> Like LV and others I find it really really difficult to get the avatar down to size. Could I ask Moodywop and others what they do to keep such complicated avatars under the limit?



Good question. I have Photoshop — and some small experience with it 
There is a facility when saving a file for the web to adjust the image size and also to adjust the 'quality' of the image, which adjusts the file-size downwards and aids in compression.

I would be pleased to assist forer@s wishing to adapt avatars.

Email me the image and I'll see what I can do within whatever limits are the order of the day.


----------



## cuchuflete

The limit is inherent, I think, in the vB software.  I don't know if Mike can configure it.  That's his call to make if he can.

As a DSL user, I don't much care, but I'm concerned for those on dial-up connections.

Personal viewpoint:  IF it can be expanded a little, without harming those with dial-up modem access, I support the request.  If not, we will remain a discussion forum.  Life will go on.

How important is this really?  Would you be willing to trade off signatures for a larger avatar?  How about reducing the maximum number of smilies per post?


----------



## timpeac

maxiogee said:
			
		

> Good question. I have Photoshop — and some small experience with it
> There is a facility when saving a file for the web to adjust the image size and also to adjust the 'quality' of the image, which adjusts the file-size downwards and aids in compression.
> 
> I would be pleased to assist forer@s wishing to adapt avatars.
> 
> Email me the image and I'll see what I can do within whatever limits are the order of the day.


Thanks Tony. I haven't got one at the moment, but if I come across the problem in future I will let you know! Actually my partner has photoshop so maybe I'll see if I can do it myself. What sort of picture file do you start with?


----------



## lazarus1907

By the way, if anyone struggles to reduce a picture down to 2 kB and doesn´t know how to do it, I offer myself to help (I know a bit about the image compression algorithms normally used).


----------



## lsp

moodywop said:
			
		

> Well, Tim, I'm afraid the forer@ who helped me with my avatar won't have his/her name divulged.


If you mean me, I don't mind in this case. 

I don't mind the 80 x 80 limit, because I'm good with Photoshop optimization (this little doggie of mine is from a 7 mega pixel digital camera set to 2048 x 1536. She could be printed in beautiful detail poster size!) Just a question, if you increase the dimensions but not the k size, it's not going to be any easier, is it?


----------



## lazarus1907

lsp said:
			
		

> ust a question, if you increase the dimensions but not the k size, it's not going to be any easier, is it?


It is... if your picture has sharp edges, for example (like mine).


----------



## Dr. Quizá

I use ImageReady (Photoshop's companion) to optimize GIF images and such (I made my current avatar with it and it's less than 0.2KB!) but there are free, lighter and easier software to do this kind of things, like Picasa, IrfanView or XnView (I use the latter as main image viewer):

http://www.xnview.com/
http://www.irfanview.com
http://picasa.google.com/

BTW, images of the size of an avatar have better quality/size ratio saved as GIF than saved as JPEG, specially if they have few and plain colors like mine's or Lazarus'.


----------



## maxiogee

timpeac said:
			
		

> Thanks Tony. I haven't got one at the moment, but if I come across the problem in future I will let you know! Actually my partner has photoshop so maybe I'll see if I can do it myself. What sort of picture file do you start with?


Anything which you can open with Photoshop can be saved to a .gif/.png/.jpg format when you select "save for web" in the "file" menu.


----------



## fenixpollo

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Would you be willing to trade off signatures for a larger avatar? How about reducing the maximum number of smilies per post?


 No on the first question, yes on the second.


----------



## maxiogee

Yes to both.


----------



## GenJen54

cuchuflete said:
			
		

> Personal viewpoint: IF it can be expanded a little, without harming those with dial-up modem access, I support the request. If not, we will remain a discussion forum. Life will go on.


I tend to fall into this camp.  Not to be a downer, but the only reason I really appreciate avatars is for the instant recognition they afford.  I can scan through a thread quickly and see who has posted.  It is also helpful when looking for a specific post (knowing who has posted it). 

_Would having increased avatar space be nice_?  Sure. I'd love to repost my original Buddha in her full glorious detail, or repost my current Veronica with better resolution.

_Would having increased avatar space be nice if it meant getting rid of signatures_?  I don't know.  Some people use their signatures as means of asking for corrections.  Others, like myself, use them from time to time for fun!  

_Would having increased avatar space be nice if it meant getting rid of smilies_?  Again, I don't know. 

I guess, in short, my opinion on the matter is rather neutral.  (Sorry, Tony!)


----------



## timpeac

Oh, I thought that the last two were rhetorical - I most certainly would not rather have a larger avatar if it mean fewer smilies or no signature.


----------



## ireney

Well I don't have yet installed any picture editing software on this PC (shame on me) but I have found the resize your picture  site  very handy. It does good work and right-clicking on the resized image and selecting 'Properties' lets you see if it needs further resizing.

I am afraid I'm one of those who don't really care about the size although in WR it IS rather limited compared to other sites


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Avatar size is really sufficient here. It allows us to have a recognizable pic, and obliges us to focus on symbols instead of using full beautiful images. Moreover, I think this kind of "constraint" can improve our creativity.


----------



## Sallyb36

I too would like to be able to use bigger avatars, I haven't got one because all the ones I want to use are slightly too big.


----------



## Poetic Device

Not saying anything that everyone else has already said, but I 100% agree with this idea to make the avatar larger. It is incredibly hard to make any picture the size that it currently requires. 

Just out of curiosity: I know that some places or groups have a rule about petitions and whatnot. Is there such a rule or procedure here?


----------



## timpeac

Poetic Device said:


> Not saying anything that everyone else has already said, but I 100% agree with this idea to make the avatar larger. It is incredibly hard to make any picture the size that it currently requires.
> 
> Just out of curiosity: I know that some places or groups have a rule about petitions and whatnot. Is there such a rule or procedure here?


No - no rule. Mike the administrator reads this forum and will hear your views and take them on board, I'm sure. Ultimately it's his site and he will make amendments where he can and where he thinks best. It's not a democracy I'm afraid


----------



## mkellogg

Bigger avatars?
My opinion has always been that you can resize any image to be less than 2k and smaller than 80x80.  The resolution suffers some of course, but the image remains the same, right?

So, if you can resize any image to fit, all you really want here is better resolution, right?

BTW, I thought the current vB software auto-resizes the images to fit.  I may be wrong.


----------



## timpeac

mkellogg said:


> Bigger avatars?
> My opinion has always been that you can resize any image to be less than 2k and smaller than 80x80. The resolution suffers some of course, but the image remains the same, right?
> 
> So, if you can resize any image to fit, all you really want here is better resolution, right?
> 
> BTW, I thought the current vB software auto-resizes the images to fit. I may be wrong.


Well, there have been some suggestions of software to try out above, but in the past I have spent ages trying resize even really simple images and get them within the 2k. Perhaps it's just my computer illiteracy. If what you say about it being automatic is true, then that's great!


----------



## mkellogg

If there is no auto-resizing, or it doesn't work well, I'm sure there's a webpage out there (possibly mentioned above) that will do a good job resizing images and is not too technical.  I would be happy to include a link to one of the websites if it would help.


----------



## cuchuflete

Mac users may want to try ToyViewer.  It's freeware, and has resizing capabilities.


----------



## ILT

The vBulletin does not have automatic resizing capabilities, I just modified my avatar today and I had to do it manually    (Not that I mind doing it by myself, it's easy and rewarding  )


----------



## Moogey

Sorry to not be on the side of those with avatars, but I love WR's avatar max size. In another forum there are avatars that take up a half of the page (exaggerating...) I know well what 100x100 is and I think it is a tad bit too big.

The file sizes depend on dimensions, resolution, {colors and compression} (which both go hand-in-hand with the file type).

GIF files, since they can only have 256 colors max would probably be the best way to go to limit size, although you might pass up some colors. JPEG files are great because you can use compression on them. Avoid TIFF files because to the best of my knowledge they don't compress at all, so they have an entry for each individual pixel in the image.

Lastly, there would be no noticeable page load difference for broadband users, but there could be for dial-up users depending on the file size.

-M


----------



## maxiogee

I'll take that as a "no" then, and fold up my protest banner and depart, not quite dissatisfied and not quite disgruntled.

PS
In modifying my avatar I posted an image wider than 80 and it was scaled for me.
Seems Mike was right - not that I doubted him, but I had been told in the past that my image was too large.


----------



## la reine victoria

Remember the time when we had an "avatar blackout"?  I think it was when Mike had to change to a new server.

WR carried on as normal.  

Of course, avatars are fun - but they are hardly essential to the forums' purpose.

I belong to a couple of forums where avatars are not allowed.  Another one gives you one automatically, whether you like it or not.

Oh well, I'll get by without my "Family Tree of Victoria and Albert, 1841-2006."   



LRV
Fiddle-de-dee


----------



## mkellogg

I was hoping that somebody would respond back saying the best and easiest online image resizer is _____.  Others would respond back, "Thanks, that was easy", and I would add a link to it in the Control Panel.  Most everyone would be happy.


----------



## Jana337

OK, here's one (do not overlook dot *cz* ): http://online-image-resize.kategorie.cz/

This is where I live (1,79 kB, 70x52 pixels):






Not too bad, is it?

Jana


----------



## maxiogee

Jana337 said:


> OK, here's one (do not overlook dot *cz* ): http://online-image-resize.kategorie.cz/
> 
> This is where I live (1,79 kB, 70x52 pixels):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad, is it?
> 
> Jana



Actually Jana, it lacks clarity and definition for me.


----------



## Poetic Device

Jana337 said:


> OK, here's one (do not overlook dot *cz* ): http://online-image-resize.kategorie.cz/
> 
> This is where I live (1,79 kB, 70x52 pixels):
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not too bad, is it?
> 
> Jana


 
I agree with Tony.  I see green and a mountain in the distance....


----------



## Jana337

Poetic Device said:


> I agree with Tony.  I see green and a mountain in the distance....


Well, I uploaded a picture of 100 kB, while up to 1,2 MB is allowed. 

Jana


----------



## Jana337

OK, more attempts with larger (and more colorful) images:










Should be better. I did not realize that the first picture did not mean anything to you, but the original picture was not much different, I swear. 

Jana


----------



## ireney

mkellogg said:


> I was hoping that somebody would respond back saying the best and easiest online image resizer is _____.  Others would respond back, "Thanks, that was easy", and I would add a link to it in the Control Panel.  Most everyone would be happy.



I did post http://resizepic.com/ before didn't I (post #33) ? I just can't give you any samples as Jana did 'cause imageshack just won't cooperate.


----------



## mkellogg

Thanks ireney.  These might work, but I wish you could say a maximum file size as well (2k).


----------



## ireney

Well, what I did with my previous avatar was downside the picture and then click on the new one and go to Properties. It needed some more downsizing but I found it easy


I've yet to find one that does file size (I mean a freeware) although I'm sure it's out there


----------



## Freyja

I think it would be nice to have bigger avatars as well.  If the files are still under 2k, it shouldn't increase the load time.


----------



## KaRiNe_Fr

Freyja said:


> I think it would be nice to have bigger avatars as well.  If the files are still under 2k, it shouldn't increase the load time.


And so we could see eventually the cap of your bottle! 
More seriously, websites with bigger avatars are not that involved into language stuff like this one. Let's keep on focusing on it... Don't you think so?


----------



## Freyja

KaRiNe_Fr said:


> And so we could see eventually the cap of your bottle!
> More seriously, websites with bigger avatars are not that involved into language stuff like this one. Let's keep on focusing on it... Don't you think so?


 
Not just the cap, but the funny picture as well   (it's from the movie Strange Brew).

I don't think that a larger avatar would detract from the purpose of the site.  I think our avatars can be a way of saying who we are and who we are influences what we post on this site.  I think it's a way to make these nameless, faceless "people" more real. I put "people" in quotes because the anonymity of screen names and no facial expressions or body language make it hard to get to know much about the real person behind the name.  "Maxiogee" is not a person.  It is a name behind which a real person (and a damned fine one) named Tony sits.  If I can use something like an avatar to let people in a little on who I really am, whilst still guarding my security on the internet, I'd like it to be big enough so that people can see it.


----------



## A90Six

maxiogee said:


> I'll take that as a "no" then, and fold up my protest banner and depart, not quite dissatisfied and not quite disgruntled.


If you're still there in the tent with the banner held high, let me know and I might be able to relieve you for a couple of days next week - weather permitting.
I'm all for a larger avatar size limit. The reason I don't use an avatar is because 80x80 is too small and it hardly seems worth the effort.


----------



## justjukka

I'm trying to save one of my shows by using one of my avatars, but it's too big!


----------



## cuchuflete

I have plans, someday, maybe, to conduct a completely scientific study of the impact of avatars on the quality of posts.

I expect, whatever the outcome, that those without avatars will either nod knowingly at the results or just ignore them and continue to write messages.  Those with avatars may protest if they don't "win", or they may not.

That's the beauty of scientific, empirical research. It only rarely changes the essential nature of the topic under study.

On second thought, maybe I'll study colour variations in peanut butter.

There was a time, before one of the many recent server upgrades, when Mike had to turn off avatars for a little while to put all available computer power into running the basic forum functions.  My recollection is that the quality of discussions did not suffer at all during our avatar-free period.


----------



## Moogey

Another good point, cuchuflete!

I have been thinking about making my own avatar for months, but I think I've resolved to never have one. After being here nearly a year without one, it would be very out-of-character for me to suddenly have an avatar, just like it would be very out-of-character for me to stop writing "-M" after each of my posts instead of putting it in my signature, which I don't want to do.

Not having an avatar doesn't affect the quality of my posts 

-M


----------



## fenixpollo

mkellogg said:


> ]My opinion has always been that you can resize any image to be less than 2k and smaller than 80x80.  The resolution suffers some of course, but the image remains the same, right?
> 
> So, if you can resize any image to fit, all you really want here is better resolution, right?


   Many of us also want to be able to use images we already have, because we don't know how to resize images.

On the other hand, the limit forces us to learn how to re-size images. It is a challenge to be overcome and an opportunity for us to grow. 





Dr. Quizá said:


> Well, avatars can be hidden from the Control Panel if they bother, and good web browsers like Opera do a nice image and cache management. Plus, if it were possible to use linked avatars instead of uploaded avatars the server load would be lesser.
> 
> I'm a user of a bunch of forums where I've always supported light avatars and signatures, but I find WR to be exaggerated regarding to this.


 Those people who don't like them, can turn them off. There you go. Simple as that.  

It's very, very hard to find a ready-made image that's 80x80 and under 2kb. It seems like most people who are making avatars are making them 100x100. I don't think that's the standard necessarily, but it's certainly very common to see that size.





GenJen54 said:


> ...the only reason I really appreciate avatars is for the instant recognition they afford.  I can scan through a thread quickly and see who has posted.  It is also helpful when looking for a specific post (knowing who has posted it).


 When Mike had to turn off avatars, I spent more time reading threads.  Yes, I know it was microseconds longer, but my brain had to work harder to recognize foreros because I suddenly lost what little visual familiarity I had used to identify the ones with avatars. 





Freyja said:


> I think our avatars can be a way of saying who we are....


 Some people like them because having an avatar is an expression of their personality and creativity.  





			
				Moogey said:
			
		

> I have been thinking about making my own avatar for months, but I think I've resolved to never have one. After being here nearly a year without one, it would be very out-of-character for me to suddenly have an avatar, just like it would be very out-of-character for me to stop writing "-M" after each of my posts instead of putting it in my signature, which I don't want to do.


  Some people like them because _not having an avatar_ can be an expression of their personality.

Avatars definitely help my visually-oriented brain navigate this place better, and they help me explore everything that is chicken-themed.


----------



## maxiogee

cuchuflete said:


> I expect, whatever the outcome, that those without avatars will either nod knowingly at the results or just ignore them and continue to write messages.  Those with avatars may protest if they don't "win", or they may not.



Should you wish to, please refer to my post of 22 August, wherein I conceded the point. There has been 
no protest, there was a request.
I asked for something I thought would brighten the place slightly. I definitely 
didn't ask for the sake of 
enhancing the conversations here.


----------



## lix

It is practically _impossible_ to get an avatar (an avatar that is more than an image cropped more or less well - I mean an avatar that has been modified to look 'pretty' in Photoshop or anything else) to weight less than 2kb if you don't want it to look like crap. I don't think increasing the limit to 100x100 and, say, 10kb or 20kb would be a very big problem to anyone, not even to dial-up users. Seriously.


----------



## lsp

lix said:


> It is practically _impossible_ to get an avatar to weight less than 2kb if you don't want it to look like crap. I don't think increasing the limit to 100x100 and, say, 10kb would be a very big problem to anyone, not even to dial-up users. Seriously.



I am not against the avatar size increase, but I was surprised to see this is such a hot topic. I've changed my avatar almost 30 times since I joined and have helped other foreros who have PMd me to resize theirs, and I have rarely had a problem. Granted, you can't fit the Sistine Chapel, or the your extended family panorama portrait, but I've had a fairly complex MC Escher sketch, a scenic shot of a bridge and the Vatican dome of Rome, the Gates from NYC ...and I don't think any of them, including the current one "look like crap." I'm curious what is giving people such difficulty (I use Photoshop). And I just can't help wondering if a year after we were to go to 100 x 100 we won't have a thread saying 110 x 110 would be so much easier and allow for so much more personal expression?


----------



## ireney

I don't really mind since a) it took me a while to decide to get an avatar b) I seem to manage ok with my avatars, is that a site dedicated to learning and explaining has to have small avatars. There's another site I frequent. It is dedicated to learning and explaining and teaching ancient Greek and Latin. Avatar's maximum size there is 120x 120. 6 Kb.


----------



## lsp

I just had another thought, since the WR is configured to allow everyone an 80 x 80 avatar and a 100 x 100 profile picture, and not everyone uses the profile picture, if size is so critical here, why not switch the dimension restrictions of the 2?


----------



## lix

lsp said:


> I am not against the avatar size increase, but I was surprised to see this is such a hot topic. I've changed my avatar almost 30 times since I joined and have helped other foreros who have PMd me to resize theirs, and I have rarely had a problem. Granted, you can't fit the Sistine Chapel, or the your extended family panorama portrait, but I've had a fairly complex MC Escher sketch, a scenic shot of a bridge and the Vatican dome of Rome, the Gates from NYC ...and I don't think any of them, including the current one "look like crap." I'm curious what is giving people such difficulty (I use Photoshop). And I just can't help wondering if a year after we were to go to 100 x 100 we won't have a thread saying 110 x 110 would be so much easier and allow for so much more personal expression?



I don't really care about the size - you can easily resize a 100x100 icon (which is the size of the icons I make for LiveJournal) to 80x80 -, but I've been trying to get this icon (a 80x80 version of it) to weigh 2kb or less and it really looks awful. And not only that - even if you save it as a .jpg file with the lowest quality, it's still over 3kb. The only way to get it lower than that is saving it as a .gif file with less than 32 colors and it looks awfully pixelated. I mean, what's the point of cropping and coloring an icon so it looks beautiful (in my opinion, at least) if it gets ruined when you save it?


----------



## lsp

lix said:


> I don't really care about the size - you can easily resize a 100x100 icon (which is the size of the icons I make for LiveJournal) to 80x80 -, but I've been trying to get this icon (a 80x80 version of it) to weigh 2kb or less and it really looks awful. And not only that - even if you save it as a .jpg file with the lowest quality, it's still over 3kb. The only way to get it lower than that is saving it as a .gif file with less than 32 colors and it looks awfully pixelated. I mean, what's the point of cropping and coloring an icon so it looks beautiful (in my opinion, at least) if it gets ruined when you save it?







Here it is at 80 x 78 (1.98k). Is it really so horrible?


----------



## fenixpollo

lsp said:


> I'm curious what is giving people such difficulty (I use Photoshop).


 Not everybody has Photoshop.


----------



## lsp

fenixpollo said:


> Not everybody has Photoshop.



It wasn't my intent to suggest that everyone or anyone else has Photoshop. I was merely offering my own personal resource choice, anticipating someone might ask. My aim was to be helpful.


----------



## maxiogee

lix said:


> I've been trying to get this icon (a 80x80 version of it) to weigh 2kb or less and it really looks awful.



How's this in a .jpg, Madam? 

View attachment 3396

That's a smidgin under 2K


----------



## fenixpollo

Thanks to helpful foreros like you, LSP, I was able to learn how to re-size an image to WR specifications. The offers made by you and maxiogee and others are very generous.  Thanks!  

However, I am conscious of the many foreros who haven't the faintest idea how to play with images -- because I was once (and to some degree, still am) in their shoes. I was just answering your question as to why people have such difficulty.


----------



## natasha2000

> Your file of 2.0 KB bytes exceeds the forum's limit of 2.0 KB for this filetype.


 
 How's this possible?


----------



## Jana337

It could be due to rounding (2.001 etc.). Reduce it by a few more pixels and you'll be fine. 

Jana


----------



## maxiogee

2.0 KB can be up to 2.049KB and still appear as 2.0 but be greater than 2.0


----------



## maxiogee

Jana337 said:


> It could be due to rounding (2.001 etc.).
> Jana



That'd be Stanley Kubrick's avatar then?


----------



## natasha2000

Let's see. Sometimes, some pictures, just cannot be used for avatar!!!! 

I reduiced the size for 20%, and the program accepted it, but in tie end, the upload failed!

Each time I awant to change my avatar, I experience the same problems!!!!


----------



## natasha2000

Oh!
The picture is changed!

Now  I really don't have a clue.... 

The message I received was: 
Upload of file failed.


----------



## Etcetera

natasha2000 said:


> The message I received was:
> Upload of file failed.


It happens.
When I am uploading my photos on the Net, for example, I sometimes get the same message, even though the photos are uploaded! So, it's not necessary a forum bug.


----------



## Moogle

Hello,

I have just joined this forum and I was thinking about customizing my profile but I noticed that the requirements for pictures is quite preposterous. It's almost impossible for me to place any avatar at all unless it's stock photo.

My image is 80x78 (within the dimensional limits) but I believe the file size is too large. I've tried compressing it to the maximum using Photoshop CS3, and all attempts have been futile. It's almost impossible to get an image to 2.0KB or smaller unless the dimensions are ridiculously tiny (20x20 - 10x10)? 

I hope that you guys can change these requirements and make them a bit more flexible. For example: 20kb - 40kb would be fantastic as most 80x80 pictures go around 15-20kb at HIGH quality settings. Lowest Photoshop got was 14.3KB on 0 quality setting .

Also, I tried uploading it onto another server (imageshack) which SHOULD logically remove any sort of problems with file size, but that has also failed. I still get error messages saying: The remote file is too large. It's not being hosted on your server so  the size should not matter ^_^.

Anyways, hope something changes! Thanks


----------



## jonquiliser

At least in Photoshop you can just choose "Save for web", and shrink the dimensions. In a picture of the size here, and being on the screen, there really is no quality loss.


----------



## belén

Hello
Please use the search button (top right of the screen) and search for "avatar" in the Comments and Suggestions forum. You will find many threads that discuss this subject, give tips on how to achieve the right size and philosophize  about the avatars concept.

Cheers!

Belén 

PD Thread closed in order not to have so many threads about the same subject. Please add your comments in any other thread. Thanks.


----------

