On this site we often have images of schematics or PCBs etc. that are relatively high in resolution. Using the standard way of embedding an image in the post reduces the image size to something that fits the posting format; but it doesn't rescale the image, it just sets the image tag so that the browser does the rescaling (to 660px or similar).

Even from long time users I often see comments that the image is in an unreadable resolution when all they need to do is to right click and chose "open image in new tab/window". This is not only inconvenient, it is also that many people forget that it is possible, and in the case the image is already in a scaled down resolution, it is wasted time.

I therefore propose that we add the feature to the image upload process that when the image would be scaled down by the img html tags values, it will automatically get a link to the higher resolution version. If it is smaller, then such a link is not necessary, and by the existence of the link we can see that there is (or is not) a higher resolution version available.

For visualizing things (and to have a possible solution markup available that people can use themselves manually), this is how it would currently be (random image from google image search):

enter image description here

And this is how it should be:

enter image description here

  • \$\begingroup\$ I think this would be a improvement, but much of the time the real problem is that the original image wasn't properly scaled in the first place. This site give you 630(?) pixels width. Most things posted here can be shown with that just fine, just that too many users are too lazy to properly trim and show the relevant level of detail. We see 6 Mpix cell phone shots of a small and out of focus connector in the middle way too often here. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 31, 2015 at 14:40
  • \$\begingroup\$ @OlinLathrop: Indeed proper cropping is often a problem, and already the full input image is useless due to various unfixable reasons... I wish we could set people on hold for that reason only sometimes... While we can not fix everything technically, this idea is intended for maybe that part where we can: For a lot of images, 660px is not enough to transport all the information (I tried to chose an image where this is evident). I can imagine such a feature being useful for other sites (e.g. photo.se) too. \$\endgroup\$
    – PlasmaHH
    Mar 31, 2015 at 15:08
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ Ease of access to a larger image is a good idea. When I wish to make it clear that this can be done I add a line under the image Larger version here | A problem with your system as it standsis that it takes the reader off the existing page. Invariably opening in a new tab or window would (arguably) be more useful. | My link also takes readers off the page unless it is eg shift-clicked, but users are more familiar with link behaviour than having pictures do similarly. \$\endgroup\$
    – Russell McMahon Mod
    Mar 31, 2015 at 18:12

1 Answer 1


It's much easier for you to change this


into this


than for SE to change the user interface for just one particular site.

Often, these users do know how to enlarge the picture, they just want to 'teach the newcomer' in their own way. That's an entirely different problem.

One solution is to comment to tell these users what they can do to enlarge the picture.

  • \$\begingroup\$ I think what's missing in your version is the "Automatic generation of a 630xN pixel 'thumbnail' and linking to the original". What's desired is [![...][2]][1], where [2] is the resized image. \$\endgroup\$
    – W5VO
    Mar 31, 2015 at 16:57
  • \$\begingroup\$ Your browser does that for you. I don't think page load time is a concern...? \$\endgroup\$
    – user17592
    Mar 31, 2015 at 17:02
  • \$\begingroup\$ @W5VO also the image in his example is not resized. \$\endgroup\$
    – user17592
    Mar 31, 2015 at 17:08
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Actually page load time is a concern. Browsers scroll slowly when there are large images they have to resize. \$\endgroup\$ Mar 31, 2015 at 22:13
  • \$\begingroup\$ Then the example is bad. \$\endgroup\$
    – user17592
    Mar 31, 2015 at 22:14

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .