Inserted/Embedded (html) photos look horrible

[ftdatl]

Why, when I insert/embed a photo into a mail does it force it to scale so small it looks like garbage?

I can understand why the free version might restrict the size of embedded images (incentive to buy pro version), but I'm using the pro version.  At the very least it should allow a 1920x1080 photo, but really, inserting the full-size image should be an option if not the default behavior.  That would allow me to chose to size an image (externally) any way I want, and embed it in an email and the receiver would see exactly what I wanted them to see.

[Kostya Vasilyev]

For large images, please *attach* (not insert into text).

That's what attachments are for, they can be as large as you like (both in terms of dimensions and file size).

[ftdatl]

With all due respect, attachments and embedded pictures serve two very different needs.

When embedding pictures in-line, it allows for annotations to explain the photos, which is even more important if you're including several photos.  As attachments the reader can easily lose the connection between the text and the pictures, plus you can't see the text and attached photos at the same time.

Whether I'm emailing my mother photos of her grandchildren or emailing someone at work pictures of needed PC Board modifications (which visual detail / size is even more important) I almost always need to annotate photos, and that unfortunately means I cannot use Aqua-mail.  And that is a shame because I purchased the pro version.

Attached pictures vs. embedded also puts more of a burden on the receiver because he/she has to open each attached picture individually, rather than simply scrolling down while reading their mail.

If I want to send someone really high-resolution pictures (huge files), I'd more than likely put them in dropbox or I suppose maybe attach them, but there are plenty of times I want to embed several 1280x720 or 1920x1080 (or sometimes even a little larger) in-line with text explaining them.

Please fix this.  There is no practical reason for limiting the size of embedded pictures.  Attached or embedded, the data still needs to be sent, so why make Aqua Mail less useful by creating a false size restriction?  No other email app that supports Rich-Text / HTML mail that I've used has such a restriction.

Frankly, this is the only real complaint I have about Aqua Mail.  Overall, it's a fantastic app....with this one odd, annoying limitation.

(Okay, so I sort of also wish it supported bulleted lists, but THAT is something I can work around by just typing the list myself.  I can't fix tiny, low-res in-line pictures myself.)

[Kostya Vasilyev]

Re: There is no practical reason for limiting the size of embedded pictures

There is.

[KieSeyHow]

Re: There is no practical reason for limiting the size of embedded pictures

There is.

What is the reason?  I would like to know in case someone asks me.  I often reccomend this email client to people, and several of them use embedded images in their email for claims and teechnical support.

On my Thunderbird workstation email client, I have a script that allows resizing, and recompression of embedded images with various options.  I use this often to reduce product images to a manageable size.  Could something like this be added to Aquamail, so people have the choice? 

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk

[Kostya Vasilyev]

The Android EditText which is the underlying implementation of the text editor -- goes crazy when an image is wider than the screen.

In addition, EditText does not do any memory management trying to "free" whatever images are not visible (and then reload as needed). We could add this, in theory, but it's time better spent on something else.

I still maintain that the primary use for embedded images is things like corporate logos and so on.

[KieSeyHow]

The Android EditText which is the underlying implementation of the text editor -- goes crazy when an image is wider than the screen.

In addition, EditText does not do any memory management trying to "free" whatever images are not visible (and then reload as needed). We could add this, in theory, but it's time better spent on something else.

I still maintain that the primary use for embedded images is things like corporate logos and so on.

Thank-you for the explanation.


it seems a good idea then to spend some time learning to use an image editor, and have two images is some cases: a small compressed one for embedding, and uncompressed files attached.  I already found several authentic classical inage editors that perform such actions, as well as annotations and tag editing with a few taps.

Sent from my SM-P900 using Tapatalk