Comment

Comment by ThePracticalPeasant on April 19, 2017 at 4:50pm

it rotates based on the original orientation tag i think... that data is likely dumped though, most websites don't preserve the EXIF data on images as it is unnecessary size (and sometimes contains personally identifiable information), so that explains why a copy and paste would work, the orientation tag no longer exists since the server stripped the data after processing the image. But that's just my guess based on the evidence presented ;)

Comment by the anonymous pick on April 19, 2017 at 4:42pm

lol.. i  just  copied  and pasted your big picture  ;-)  i do that  for folks sometimes  so others can see  it in real size in description  without clicking etc  .   odd that it accepts  a copy and paste of the same  pic

Comment by ThePracticalPeasant on April 19, 2017 at 4:17pm

Yes, anonymous pick.. but funny that the site doesn't leave out the height value for the image when rendering the page, seems quite simple to fix.

Comment by the anonymous pick on April 19, 2017 at 4:13pm

Comment by ThePracticalPeasant on April 18, 2017 at 3:47pm

Goodness, I found the problem. Both the height and width are specified in the markup. Remove the explicit sizing, and the page's structure sizes the image in an appropriate way... 

Comment by ThePracticalPeasant on April 18, 2017 at 3:39pm

But instead of simply rotating the photo such that the long side is horizontal, it obeys the EXIF information for the orientation, then stretches the photo to fit the ratio on the page...

Comment by Kigar on April 18, 2017 at 3:35pm

You mean that is not a 9" scale?  It seems like any photo that is cropped or rotated doesn't show right unless the proportions are what the site expects.