Image sizes seem to ignore settings in Image Object
Hi, here is a screenshot of an image configuration that shows me selecting a height of 520px to match a map object which is set to this height.
While the map height on the screen is actually 650px, the red dress image is even more.
I find this to be a common occurrence, the image settings seem to have zero effect on the screen size, and I have to then scale the original image to get some control over it. This should not be necessary.
Can you shed some light on this for me please.
Cheers
Mark
Oh, this thing doesn't cope with even a small image added.
So, I have the Image | Size setting set to Large (1024px), and the Image | Height set to 520px, but the latter has no effect. I have checked the caches are cleared.
So, I have the Image | Size setting set to Large (1024px), and the Image | Height set to 520px, but the latter has no effect. I have checked the caches are cleared.
Comments
The library image has a height of 1280 pixels, I want it to display to say 600.
What should I set the Image | Size, and Image | Height to?
I find that the Image | Height has no effect. The image is displayed strictly in according to the three options under Image | Size.
I have set the option to Full Size, then the height to 300, and it displays at around full size of 630px, ignoring the height. When I then select the Size to the 300 x 300 option, it DOES then resize to 300.
I have tried various other combinations, some work, some do not.
I have run the Regenerate function on the image of relevance and the only change is that the image captions are now displayed correctly.
This box should be able to accommodate them as pastes, or at least have a File Upload option, not just the Insert Image option which requires the file to be served first as I've described.
Mark