I’ve done a bit of detective work since I put this query up.
Most of my pics are 16:9 or 9:16, depending on orientation. Pictures posted since the beginning of April seem to be too big for this page (they are going up at a bigger size than they did before) and then, if they are horizontal 16:9 pictures, they get stretched vertically or, more properly, squeezed horizontally. I’ve worked (see first fix) out that if I use smaller picture dimensions, this won’t occur, but I’m loath to have to do that too generally and mystified what has introduced the problem. Is it a problem with the “theme” of the page design?
Very lazy of me to ask the world at large about this, and it will be even more embarrassing if no-one answers. So I’m saying right now that when I delete this post it doesn’t necessarily mean that nobody did, even if I still haven’t fixed the problem.
First fix: [actually second edition of first fix now] looking back over older posts, I see that previously they were sized a bit smaller. I’ve reduced them all to 448:252. Earlier pictures, which fit, adopted (I can’t work out exactly how) 450:253 as their dimensions. I’ve done the same with Dulwich Hill Light Rail Community Forum, but not yet Good Friday, driving southwards.
Stumbling on melons 
May 10, 2010 at 9:14 pm |
They are vertically stretched as I see them, and they weren’t when ‘rear vision’ went on line. It look as if the whole post width has been narrowed – that’s the setting which seems altered. I only know about blogger, and there the options for width are in the layout/ html settings.
That may be little news, but I do have some news on Shanghai.
May 10, 2010 at 10:01 pm |
Email sent re Sh. As to the pix, they are now smaller in the appropriate ratios – it seems necessary to squeeze into the column, otherwise the stretching/cramping. Do they come out OK for you now?
May 10, 2010 at 10:45 pm |
The second bicycle pic still looks odd but the Dulwich Hall shot, which was badly distorted, looks fine, so….
May 10, 2010 at 11:07 pm |
Thanks. I’ve not replied to your emails at present re SH as didn’t notice them within the time you suggested for response this evening, but have taken things further by email with Jialin. I think the second picture now looks odd because of the composition: or is it still vertically exaggerated? (You can check by clicking on it through to the native image.) I’ve already rejigged the Good Friday pix – I think the secret is that the width cannot exceed 450 on this format. If 16:9, then that means 450:253; if 4:3, then 450:337, and so on for the rotations (450:800 and 450:600 by my calculations).
May 11, 2010 at 6:55 am |
They all look normal now, the same as when initially posted.
Jialin, yes, and I, like Barry McKenzie, could only manage to hear Charlie, which, phonetically, isn’t too embarrassing, I hope.
May 12, 2010 at 7:14 am |
I must have come late to this post. The photos look fine to me.
(Or maybe my eyesight needs improvement!)
May 12, 2010 at 7:54 am |
Thanks Victor for looking. They’ve been fixed up, or so it seems to me and Wanderer – it’s in the comments but I suppose I should edit the post or even efface it now that the issue has been addressed.