fungi growing on dead tree

[darkoshi]

Why is it that when I post photos to DW, they always display as larger than actual size? I have to add a parameter like width="80%" to make them look the same size as they do in my image editor, when I'm displaying them actual size there.

Before I had thought it was browser specific, but now it seems to be happening in all browsers. And I can't tell if other people see the images large or actual sized.

It must be due to me having Windows configured to display things at 125%.

Comments

[randomdreams]

That is an amazing picture, in any case.

[darkoshi]

Thanks!

[marahmarie]

Does the 125% setting make the image editor display things at 125%, as well? If not (if the setting doesn't carry over) then you're seeing images at 100% within it and 125% everywhere else (like in the browser, and so on).

[darkoshi]

> If not (if the setting doesn't carry over) then you're seeing images at 100% within it and 125% everywhere else (like in the browser, and so on).

Yes, I've verified that is what is happening. If I switch the Windows setting for "Make text and other items larger or smaller" back to 100%, then the image displays as the same size in both the editor and the browser.

But at 100%, everything (icons, menus, etc.) is too small for my comfort, so I need to keep it at 125%.

I'm glad that the image editor still shows the image at the actual size, at least. I started wondering if there's a way to force the browser to ignore the 125% setting when rendering pages, but then I suppose the webpage text and navigation buttons would look too small. There's no way for the browser to know which images I want scaled, and which ones not.

The reason why this has bothered me when I post images, is that they always look nice and crisp in the image editor, but due to the scaling, they look less crisp / somewhat blurry in the browser. But I'm glad to know now that's due to my own settings, rather than DW changing the image somehow when displaying it.

[marahmarie]

I'd play around with Firefox's zoom settings; if Windows is forcing browser scaling up to 125% then scaling back down to *hmmm...does some math* 112% in Fx should bring you back to what it'd look like at around 100%. I think. I'm basing this on a strict mathematical average, but it might be worth poking at, all the same.

Aaaand just realized Fx only scales in 10% increments, so I'd try it 110% for that, I guess. I wonder if that can be changed in about:config to allow, how would one put it...absolute values? So you could use any/the exact percentage.

[marahmarie]

As to what size I'm seeing, I view everything in my style and have a CSS setting that constrains images to max 100% res. That said, I see my own posts on Latest Things sometimes and my pictures are full-size - so huge they literally break the page. I should stop doing that.

[marahmarie]

This post reminds me, I have to walk to the end of one of the roads here and take a pic of the fungus frog. It's a fungus. That looks like a frog. Saw it weeks ago already but hopefully it's still there.

[darkoshi]

Oh, do take a photo if it's still there. Now I want to see the fungus frog :)

[marahmarie]

It totally (er, toadally) slipped my mind today. Hopefully I'll think of it tomorrow. :)

It no longer looks like a frog, though. Let's guess what it *does* resemble!

[marahmarie]

https://marahmarie.dreamwidth.org/file/459476.jpg

Took the pic today.

Background: first saw it a month ago; it sits on the base of a tree across the street from the apartment I was cleaning that week. I should've taken pics then - it looked exactly like a frog from near the apartment's front door - but I guess I figured no one'd believe it or care (though come to think of it, I should browse my gallery now to make sure I never did - if I did, the pics are gone now).

A month later it's got black spots and has melted a little. But I think it still looks like....something with two eyes.

Here's a clearer pic:

https://marahmarie.dreamwidth.org/file/463020.jpg

Distance is key; even when it was fresher, up close it would no longer resemble a frog. But the black spots are new to it from the last time I was there (so fungus has got a mold now. I'm truly fascinated by nature's layers upon layers of creation).

Re: It no longer looks like a frog, though. Let's guess what it *does* resemble!

[darkoshi]

Yes, it does look like something with a big mouth... a little bit creepy. Thanks for the pix :)

Re: It no longer looks like a frog, though. Let's guess what it *does* resemble!

[marahmarie]

Well, I thought it was kind of cute. If you check this one (it's taken long-distance and sort of blurred so you might have to study it for a bit) you might can see what I mean:

https://marahmarie.dreamwidth.org/file/464759.jpg

Kind of like a cute little sad-face frog looking to the left with two little arms under its face. That's what I'd seen a month ago but it was much clearer then.

Re: It no longer looks like a frog, though. Let's guess what it *does* resemble!

[darkoshi]

I'm not seeing anything in the last photo. But with your above description, I see the first photo as vaguely sad-froglike in another way now, which may (or may not) be the same as what you are seeing. It is sorta cute.