should there be an explicit maximum size for inline photos?

[MBTA3247]

I've noticed that on occasion an image gets posted in a thread that is considerably bigger than my browser window. This can be most annoying because it forces me (and, I assume, many other people) to scroll from side to side for every post on that page. Now I have nothing against photos being posted in threads in general, but when they're 6-megapixel images right off somebody's camera (with apologies to travelsoccerkid1), that's just annoying.

Another board I'm on explicitly states how big posted images can be. I propose that a similar rule. A limit of 1000-pixels wide seems like a reasonable size to me. That provides plenty of detail, while not stretching the page and excessive amount.

What do others think of this idea?

[Ken S.]

I think 600x400 might be better for those still on 56k connections or using 800x600 screens.

[RussNelson]

Upload it to flickr.com (at full resolution) and then use their "Blog This" to make a IMG link here.

[Ken S.]

This image comes in at 500x375 and that appears to be a decent size for a pic to be posted in the threads.

[Mike Roque]

I've noticed that on occasion an image gets posted in a thread that is considerably bigger than my browser window. This can be most annoying because it forces me (and, I assume, many other people) to scroll from side to side for every post on that page.

This won't be a problem in phpBB 3.0. It appears that they've put images in a div with overflow:hidden so that it doesn't stretch the container and therefore force the browser to scroll horizontally.

You can see a good example here:
http://www.ritmrc.org/forums/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1091