Hi guys ..I was wondering (not a good thing!) I've noticed on some reviews and features , when you click on the pictures , they open up quite small . Is there any way to have them open larger? I guess I'm getting older ..

Rick

Richard the pictures should be at least 800 x 600 with the only exception being some pictures that are slim and long, that said the longest side should still be 800.

Well I was reading the Stug III review and there is no way to see the details on the Dragon box image.. I've noticed it before as well.

Rick

Rick, you mean this?


That it because the image is originally designed to be large format, but I resized it down to the 800 pixel limit that Darren referred to.

If you want to see it big, go to the Dragon Models website http://www.dragon-models.com/ and where it says Enter Model Name or Number - in this case 6593, then click Search and you'll get to the page for that kit. You can then see those images as thumbnails, if you click them then they come up bigger, and underneath there is a Download button which will bring up an even bigger version.

In fact, this is it: 6593

Hi Matt ..Yeah that is what I was talking about and yes I know where to go find them ,but it would be nice to be able to enlarge it if we want to ...Same thing tonight I was looking at the new Bison decals but have to go to their site to see the instruction sheet ..I'd rather stay on the site .. But hey no problem ..I understand the constraints of picture size..

Thanks for the answers

Rick

The system is set up for the 800 x 600 format and so I am afraid it is the best we can do at this time.

I'm trying to understand this also. The lead photo on my set is indeed close to 600 x 800, but the very same image (and all the others) in the slide show is maybe 1/3 or 1/4 of the size, and you can't display Properties to see what it actually is.

I've asked Darren, but so far I've only gotten evasive answers. I know storage costs money and I'm not trying to fight anyone, but would appreciate some open honesty.

Charles, what type of device are you viewing it on? Looking at it on my 5" phone I think I see what you mean by the header image being about double the size of the pop up photos in the set below, but then by zooming in on the screen I can bring it up to as big or bigger and still with OK definition. The photos are probably uploaded as 800x600, but the size they pop up at may depend on things like what device, browser, zoom ratio etc. If you're ona PC, if you get the cursor somewhere near the middle of the photo you'll get an arrow cursor instead ofa finger, then you could right click and do Save target as or Save photo (I think?) Then you'll see the actual photo size when you download it. Does that help?

Thanks for the response Matthew -

I am using a PC, but as an earlier writer mentioned, there is no ability to click on the image to enlarge to full size - as some slide show software does. The photos are mine, so I already have them. However, it is frustrating that they are so small in the slide show. I can't absolutely state that it is not the result of something on my system, but it seemed more likely to me that it is the slideshow software that is causing it. I had spent a fair amount of time editing all the images, reducing the size and correcting the lighting and color balance. A few are around 150 Kb, but I believe the average for the set is about 100 Kb.

I feel that I worked hard to create small images for Armorama, but then they are made even smaller - it may be 1/2 in one dimension as you suggest, but that translates to 1/4 overall. Sure one could do any number of things to see it larger, but I don't think that should be necessary. I have no problem with Armorama setting a 800 x 600 limit, but it would be nice to actually view the photos at that size - without any intervention necessary. If this is a permanent situation, I am unlikely to spend the time taking and editing show photos for Armorama in the future.

Charles

My replies to you are not evasive. If you right click any of the thumbnails and select open in a new tab or window you can then check the properties of the pictures I have uploaded, all of the pictures will be either 800 wide or 600 tall. Due to you sending in a lot of cropped images it does result in some odd looking pictures due to the display properties of the site. The size they display at in the feature when opened I have no control over and you will need to contact the publisher for further clarification.

I'm not sure if I'm understanding this issue correctly, so forgive me if I'm way off base.

Here are 2 pics full width on my monitor, the first showing one image in relation to the header picture, the second showing the image at 800 width, which is standard for all photos on Kitmaker:





The photos in Charles's Feature seem to be 800x532 for the most part, well within good viewing size IMO.

Firstly, my most sincere apologies to Darren. I was out of line.

I had taken Matthew's advice and discovered the photo files were indeed the original size, although were clearly displaying at a much smaller size than the header photo - as others have commented. Until I saw James' post I hadn't considered the possibility that this was not a global experience, which explains the difference in what I saw and Darren saw, and my bewilderment and erroneous conclusion.





Darren - the varying cropping was due to trying to eliminate as much non-model background from the photos as possible. I can understand the need to standardize the thumbnails. If the cropping makes it more difficult on your end, I could reluctantly try to be more consistent, but would much prefer to undergo the thumbnail generalization.

Since this phenomena does vary among Armorama users, it seems we need someone to suggest a most-likely cause.

Since James is also part of the KitMaker family, I'm wondering if it is possibly somehow related to processing that may take place when one logs into the site? If someone with no relationship to KitMaker sees individual photos at full size, this possibility is eliminated. If it is somehow related to that, it would explain staff and "users" (in IT terms) having different experiences, AND not realizing the other party had a varying view of things. And if it is related to that, where else might something similar occur on the site.

Thank you for taking the time to apologize. I am wondering if it has anything to do with the size of the monitor being used to look at the images and the display properties of the site. It sounds unlikely but stranger things have happened. That is only a guess going by the display setting on James's monitor.

Your suggestion about checking if it is a staff related issue is easy to resolve as James can look at the feature before and after signing in, if the images display at the same size it is not the issue.

And my apologies to you Charles...for calling you Thomas...don't know where that came from (but I did edit and correct my post)

I can see the issue now, thanks for posting the screen grab. I tried logged out, on IE, Chrome & Firefox and on my laptop and I can not recreate this issue. Even tried different screen resolutions and zoom with no change. I'm at a loss as to what is going on.

I'm an old mainframe operator/programmer/trainer, but not a PC guy at all. However, my instinct was that it is a site vs. individual computer set-up issue. If the latter, it just seems like it would be more consistent across multiple applications, but my read is that everyone has the same view until opening an individual photo, so was seeing it as some sort of "exit" processing at KitMaker. I think we're all seeing the same size header photo, but then either a full or reduced size selected photo.

Darren - I did notice that James appears to have a huge monitor; mine is 19". When James posted his image I suddenly realized that we were each seeing different things and not considering the possibility that the other wasn't seeing the same as we were, so we couldn't comprehend where the comments were coming from.

James - I never saw it; must have been because I was doubting ;-) Maybe you should make that a perk of membership - the ability to retractively modify one message per year.

Here is a picture of my screen when I look at the Bison review that made me post this in the first place ... Sorry I didn't mean to stir anything up with this ..I was just wondering .



Rick

here's a feature as well ..



Rick