Maximum Image size

I was asked to submit my images at higher resolutions (I'd previously been exporting and uploading them at 560 pixels on the longest side) and am trying to figure out what pixel length I should limit the longest side to, but am hitting some difficulties (unless I'm doing something wrong).

It seems like my images may be getting kicked due to total area rather than longest side?

I was told maximum size was around 3000 pixels on a side, but these have all ended up rejected due to size. I was able to upload

at 2010 pixels on the long side, but

was rejected as too large when I set the long side at 2500 and was rejected again at 2000; I set it to 1500 pixels and it uploaded.

Are there different limits for different taxa groups? Is there a total pixel area I need to stay under?

I don't know if it makes any difference, but I take my pictures in RAW, process them in Adobe Lightroom, and then export them as jpegs with pixels of the longest side limited to a set number. I try to do tight crops so the length of the shorter side varies considerably image to image. Uncropped/full resolution my pictures currently run 5760x3840 pixels (even when I crop out the extra space, they tend to be pretty big).

I want to be accommodating, I can continue to upload at 560 and replace with larger images on request if that's preferred, but I'd still need some guidance on dimensions.

Thanks,
Alice

P.S. Whatever the limits are, it would be helpful if the "You may submit an image of any size..." line on the photo submission form was modified to include this information.

Contributed by Alice Abela on 13 April, 2014 - 12:33am

Linking to image as submitted

If you'd like everyone to see your high resolution images as submitted (not just yourself and editors), you can Markup a link to them in your image remarks using the URL that comes up when you view your own image as submitted. For example, putting this in your remarks:

"[url=http://bugguide.net/images/raw/LR8HBH6HRRPHRR2HZR6HUZ4L9Z9HFH8LHR9HUZ6HBHMH4ZSL6ZHLGZXLUZUHFHXLRRXL4Z7LAZSLCH.jpg]Download high resolution image here.[/url]"

creates this hyperlink to the full image:

Download high resolution image here.

This is from my posting Mite on ant 2.

You may submit images up to 3072 pixels on either side. Though undocumented, the maximum file size is just over 1.8 MB.

… Edward L. Ruden, 9 May, 2014 - 10:01am

File Size Not Only Limit

I respectfully disagree that file size is the only determinant for image acceptance. The algorithm appears to be based on a combination of file size and pixel dimensions.

Just tried to upload 3 images which I had resized to under 2MB. All were rejected as “too large”. The largest was 4302x2420 at 1.7MB and the smallest was 2300x1294 at 1.03MB.

They were all accepted when the longest dimension of each was 2000 with the jpeg image quality remaining high and all remaining above 1MB.

Is it possible that the image ratio is at least one determinant? The images I uploaded all had about a 2:1 ratio rather than standard 3:2, 1:1, 6:9, etc.

Whatever the reason(s), I also would like a modification of the statement “You may submit an image of any size, but 560 pixels on the longest side is preferred. Anything bigger than that will be automatically resized.” Images are NOT resized! And automatically using the 560 pixel resolution often results in significantly degraded image quality when viewed as a user.

… Monica Krancevic, 27 April, 2014 - 11:41am

Thanks

I stand corrected!

… John Schneider, 28 April, 2014 - 1:22pm

good research--more on 560

Oh, very interesting research. I had not investigated dimensions independent of file size.

Regarding the 560 pixel issue:
Casual browsers who are not logged into BugGuide can only see the 560 pixel images.
Users who log in can see their own original uploaded images at full size, but may be limited (?) on the size they can see from other users. (I am not sure on the details for normal users.)
Editors, when logged in, can see all size images from all users.

I agree, the 560 pixel recommendation seems a little bit oversimplified now. I'm not quite sure what would be a good explanation of all the details that is easy for everyone to understand.

This was all discussed way back in the "old days" (2004-05, etc.), but I'm not sure it has ever come up since.

… Cotinis, 27 April, 2014 - 12:07pm

More Test Results and Possible Solution

Took a Monarch caterpillar montage, a huge file 2880x3360, 16+ mg, and used Photoshop to resize.

1714x2000, 2.61mb = rejected

1714x2000, 2.16mb = rejected

1714x2000, 1.99mb = accepted

2100x2450, 2.16mb = rejected

2100x2450, 1.996mb = accepted

2000x2333, 1.99mb = accepted

Took a Damselfly file and rotated so the proportion was about 1:2

2000x3556, 1.97mb = rejected
This rejection came with an error message! “Maximum pixel size 3072x3072”.

So, even though the total pixel size was smaller, the exceeded height caused the rejection.

To test, went back to the Monarch montage file:
2633x3072, 1.97mb = accepted

Then went to the Damselfly file at its original pixels and resized:
3072x1728, 1.934mb = accepted

If these results hold true for other “tests” one might want to make, perhaps the instructions could simply state: the longest side (height or width) can’t exceed 3072 pixels and the total file size must be under 2MB.

That would take care of a lot of aggravation.

Regarding 560 pixels, a logged in “normal” user is limited to the same weeny images that a casual user is. Believe me, I’ve clicked innumerable times on an image hoping for an enlarged view. Rather amusing when an expert says that “the cerci are almost the length of segment 10” and all I see are two little blobs. Makes an ID a bit more difficult.

I’d gladly pay a special “donation” to have the ability to see enlarged images!!

… Monica Krancevic, 28 April, 2014 - 2:53pm

file size and slow internet connections

I think there is also an issue with those who do not have access to high-speed internet connections with large file sizes. Photos of good quality which are adequately cropped display very well even if the photo is only 560 pixels on the longest side. It's also probably preferable to be able to display a large number of photos quickly rather than waiting for each large photo to load. At any rate, even if one loads large photos, only the person who posted the photos (and is logged in) and editors can see the large size. The rest of us will only see photos which have been reduced to 560 pixels on the longest side. Just my thoughts on the matter...

This may be a bit dated but here are some comments from years back -- Image File Sizes

Also -- some people have posted the small size photo on Bugguide and then posted a link to the larger file which is stored elsewhere. So if you really wanted to display a super large photo, you could add a link to your posting.

There's a comment about using dialup with large files on this link dialup

At any rate, the topic of file size comes up periodically--
file size

Size limitations

And if you're interested in more discussion on this topic, just use the Search function to look for "file size". The topic has been discussed over and over through the years.

And sometimes the discussions can get quite heated...

… Ilona L., 28 April, 2014 - 7:35pm

No Problem...

I certainly have no vested interest in image upload limitations except to respond to the topic's questions (that also happened to be mine).

I gave the result of my research which is not exactly what had been suggested by other posters.

At least I now know what the upload limitations are. Others can use it or not, discuss it or not, as they please.

… Monica Krancevic, 28 April, 2014 - 10:42pm

This may already be clear from what the Balabans said, but yes, the only limit is on the file size. There's no limit based on image dimensions, although as a practical matter, the more pixels, the more likely the file size will be too high.

… John Schneider, 14 April, 2014 - 4:25am

the problem might be JPEG quality setting

Besides dimensions (summarized by the number of megapixels), the other big determinant of file size is the JPEG compression quality. Some programs set the default to a very high quality level, giving very large files. Usually this is not necessary for good image quality.
I looked at one of Alice's images and it does seem to have the JPEG quality set to near maximum. That is going to create a very large file, even at modest dimensions in pixels.

If you are still having this problem, try turning down the export quality of the JPEG in Lightroom and see if you don't get some more reasonably sized files. My guess is you won't be able to see any change in quality--compression artifacts usually only show up at the very lowest JPEG settings, and are usually only a bother for extreme contrast situations, like sharp edges around text. For natural history subject with most stuff in the mid-tones, lower quality settings, and thus smaller file size (higher compression) are fine.

(Edit: I ran some tests with Alice's images, and I think it confirms the issue. I sent her a detailed e-mail on it. Also, I think the limit is about 3 megabytes--the site will not let me upload a 3.9 megabyte, 8 megapixel, image straight from my camera.)

… Cotinis, 19 April, 2014 - 9:06pm

thanks, Patrick

most helpful explanation indeed; file size restrictions seem to supersede the 3072x3072 limit

… v belov, 20 April, 2014 - 3:45pm

Thanks!

Thanks again Patrick for taking the time to figure this out! I'm setting my JPEG to a max size 2,000 pixels on the long edge with quality set at 65 (as opposed to 100) and they have been loading fine :o)

… Alice Abela, 20 April, 2014 - 1:21pm

In general BugGuide does want images

at 560 pixels on the largest side for those who just want an ID or where details are not necessary to help with an ID. But for higher quality images or those where seeing more detail will help the experts make an ID, you can actually submit an image up to 2.0Mb. The actual pixel size will vary depending on the details of the image itself. But anything larger than 2.0 Mb gets flagged as too large to upload.

… john and jane balaban, 13 April, 2014 - 7:58am

Did the dimension limit used

Did the dimension limit used to be 1800 pixels on the longest dimension? That is in my memory banks, and I've been outputting images at that size for years thinking it was the limit. I searched and found this thread because I accidentally uploaded an image that was 2400 by 2400, and it was accepted. I may start submitting higher resolution images where detail is critical. Good to know the limit is actually 3072 pixels.

Of course, where specific detail is important, I often include separate shots where that detail is cropped.

… Victor Engel, 18 May, 2020 - 5:40pm

Disclaimer: Dedicated naturalists volunteer their time and resources here to provide this service. We strive to provide accurate information, but we are mostly just amateurs attempting to make sense of a diverse natural world. If you need expert professional advice, contact your local extension office.

Contributors own the copyright to and are solely responsible for contributed content.
Click the contributor's name for licensing and usage information.
Everything else copyright © 2003-2024 Iowa State University, unless otherwise noted.

Bugguide is hosted by:

Printer Friendly Version