We actually _have_ a need for highly detailed images. It's a site for plant identification, and sometimes that requires details of hairs, glands, anthers etc. We had an average of 5500 images per year, so disk usage should not matter. But anyway we're now checking if 1200x1200 thumbnails and 2400x2400 images is good enough. That uses only one tenth of the image size for my camera. The built in client side image scaling algorithm isn't very good though. It often leads to a loss of important details.
Statistics: Posted by Anagallis__ — Fri Jun 27, 2025 10:35 am