I notice the ruling states signature images of no more than 500(L) x 90(H)
This gives an area of 45,000 pixels
I know the reason why the dimensions are as stated above are because if they were the other way it would take an age to scroll to the next post.
How about an upper limit of 225(H) x 200(L) or vice versa?
This would equate to an area of 45,000 pixels
It's a lot easier to resize a pic to a square as against a rectangle.

Just a thought chaps.

This post has been edited by Wolfeymole: Dec 12 2007, 01:17 PM

We would prefer to not increase the size limits. From our experiences at other sites increasing the height can get overwhelming when people flood their sigs with images.

If they have more than one image then delete it.
That can be done surely G?

Multiplate images are fine as long as they are in the dimensions requested. We found that when you give a large height (ie: 225px), and multiple people in the same topic are using images that big, it gets pretty annoying pretty quickly.

Length is not the issue, it is the height.

As an example, imagine 10 posts in a row with images this big as a sig and them being able to put two in their sig.

As an example, imagine 10 posts in a row with images this big as a sig and them being able to put two in their sig.

As an example, imagine 10 posts in a row with images this big as a sig and them being able to put two in their sig.

As you can see the images take over the topic when they are essentially useless.

The image I was advocating is not as big as the blue you have displayed. Will post normal the size and see what you Think Grinler.I must have got sizes wrong somewhere.

This post has been edited by DSTM: Dec 14 2007, 05:06 PM

This isn't the image but it is the size.
This is 225(H) X 200(W) in Pixels.
I was only looking for 1 image,Grinler. Two would be toooooo much.

This post has been edited by DSTM: Dec 14 2007, 05:25 PM

The point I'm making G is that not all images in a sig can be justified by a rectangle of the forum proportions.
Would you agree?

I do agree, but I guess, im confused. You can still take any image and make it a square...just a smaller one.

If the pic was a square,what would be the Max size which you would let us use? Grinler.

I want to keep the height at 90 as it is. I honestly do not see a problem. All images can be made into a square with that height.

Ok here's a pic at 225(L) x 90(H)



Here's the same at 90 x 90



The above is the size of an Avatar.

Again I have to make the point that an image that has been designed to a given area will look stupid elongated or reduced in size to accommodate forum ruling.
Why not specify, with relevance to attachments, that any image can be of x size?
Or just bar signature images altogether?

This post has been edited by Wolfeymole: Dec 15 2007, 02:10 PM

I am still confused. Noone is saying that you have to make an image certain dimensions. All I am saying is that an image can't be greater than 90 px high. Most software, when you resize and image, will do it so that proper proportions are retained while changing the height 90 px. Therefore whatever size you change it to, within the rules, will still keep the image looking normal (just smaller).

As for attachments, they have no bearing. That is unless someone posted the same attachment in every post they make in a topic.