Fred Miranda allows this, but not here. The side itself automatically resizes large images and you then can click the image to expand.

It's true.
But sometimes you want the image to be not as large as gimpchat resizes them and not as small as in the thumbnails

If you are using ImageShack (as I do), there is an uber secret resizer but it's clunky (I use it often here). After you upload your image to Imageshack, it will automatically give you an info page for your image. What you do is, for the link part of BBC, you pick the direct image link, but for the image, you right click on the small image and it gives you the small image link (crop). Replace that with medium is what I usually do. Other alternatives are large and landing. Had a list of all the options, but don't know where I copied the list at at this moment. lol

below are some examples (click here for the thread where I posted this response):

http://imageshack.us/scaled/avatar96/89 ... glssvm.jpg
http://imageshack.us/scaled/crop/89/amf7516glssvm.jpg
http://imageshack.us/scaled/small/89/amf7516glssvm.jpg
http://imageshack.us/scaled/medium/89/amf7516glssvm.jpg
http://imageshack.us/scaled/landing/89/ ... glssvm.jpg
http://imageshack.us/scaled/large/89/amf7516glssvm.jpg

Gimp Chat downwardly resizes images wider than 760px. Image widths less than 760px will not be resized.

Ok. Thanks.

@lylejk, I'll consider that. Thank you!

Thanks GnuTux, that's a useful number to know as I'd rather be in control of the resizing process than let the forum do it automatically, as I don't like the way it does resizing.

Pity it's not 800px, as now I have to make a GimpChat option on my re-sizing script

Kevin

Is that for the 768px tablet breakpoint?

The reason we need to down size images is because sometimes, you want to post large images, but you don't want that image to appear full size and stretch the screen. A long thread of large images that forces you to scroll left and right can be very annoying and doesn't make for a good user experience.

We need to be able to size down large images but I'm not married to the size of 760px. The reason I chose 760px was based on a poll I did several years ago asking about screen resolution. It was determined that quite a few GC members used 1024px screen resolution. When you add in the size of the avatar and other style formatting, 760px was about the largest size I could use without forcing the 1024px screen resolution user to have to scroll left and right when viewing large images.

Maybe it's time to bump that thread and get another feel for what resolution most people are using. 800px might be OK at this point.

On a side note: I use the lightbox script to resize images. It also allows the user to zoom, forward/next and do a slideshow of all the images on the page, which is

Exactly, and that is a very good feature in the forum.
But sometimes you want the image can be seen even a bit smaller than 760px, without losing the ability to enlarge to full size by clicking on the image. And the thumbnails option is also useful, but in other cases they are too small. An average option between 760px and thumbnails size could also be useful. For example if you wanted to compare two images together by putting them one above the other, 760px is still large and you could not see the two images on the same screen for comparison.
In some forums I have seen that when you insert an image is given as an option the possibility to enter the size you want the image to have in the forum, you being able always click on the image to enlarge to full size.
I wondered how hard would be to implement it in GimpChat