The way this site handles pictures could really be improved.

[HammaHed]

I am a publisher on a few other sites and one of the best ones is "Instructables".

I can upload any image I want and then the site makes a range of images available for viewing.

And when I feel like coming here, with all the hassle I have to go through to get great pictures reduced in dimensions and file size (and image quality), I think it's one of the greatest disincentives to posting any pictures.

The perpetual insistence of this practice is much like asking every one to write up their posts as hand coded web pages.... it belongs in the dark ages.

It's a pity tho, because the practice doesn't work and I think it's way smarter to be doing what the other sites do, that are handling the pictures - so much better.

For Example - go to these pages and click on the "i" on the images and you can see the whole (2032x1354) 468 KB (http://www.instructables.com/files/orig/FMI/55WM/FHY0H93A/FMI55WMFHY0H93A.jpg) images.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Broken-Handle-on-Big-Power-Drill-Make-a-new-one/

http://www.instructables.com/id/A-BRILLIANT--workshop-tool---that-avoids-mostl/

http://www.instructables.com/id/Leather_Molding_Making_a_Watch_Cover/



So I have made the decision that I am not going to post any more pictures here until the owners reprogram the site and remove the archaic "This is the way we have always done it" photo handling software; and the never ending insistence that everyone comply with it - by replacing it with better software.

[witch1]

are you taking your bat and ball home too
witch1

[Grumpy John]

:bye1: see ya.

[chrisb691]

<snip>....

So I have made the decision that I am not going to post any more pictures here until the owners reprogram the site and remove the archaic "This is the way we have always done it" photo handling software; and the never ending insistence that everyone comply with it - by replacing it with better software.
I am sooooooo broken up by that. If you really want to make your point, you should stamp your foot and go. :bye1:

[malb]

Thought the numbers looked a bit suss, so I hit the link (2032x1354) 468 KB (http://www.instructables.com/files/orig/FMI/55WM/FHY0H93A/FMI55WMFHY0H93A.jpg) in the original post. It opened the pic as 4 screens full the resized it to a single screen. Guess what 480 x 370 approx at 470KB, so there is something suss with the numbers.

HammaHed, the forums are used by people witha range of internet connections from dialup through mobile, 256k ADSL to fast ADSL 2+. The nice people who fund and operate this site spend a lot of their time and effort to allow it to be accessible to all, not just a privledged few with the latest and greatest gear and access. Resizing/editing pics prior to uploading is not really a major hassle. Hope you are willing to reconsider your stance when you have something positive to contribute.

[terry arnold]

This forum not good enough for you then

Goodbye

and don't let the door hit you in rear on your way.



Terry

[HammaHed]

Yeah, once when I rode my donkey to the very edge of town, I heard from a bloke, who had a mate, who ran into a fellow who didn't look like he was from around these parts, that they have horseless carriges and flying machines too..

Good one Jim Bob's.

[Grumpy John]

I am a publisher on a few other sites and one of the best ones is "Instructables".

I can upload any image I want and then the site makes a range of images available for viewing.

And when I feel like coming here, with all the hassle I have to go through to get great pictures reduced in dimensions and file size (and image quality), I think it's one of the greatest disincentives to posting any pictures.

The perpetual insistence of this practice is much like asking every one to write up their posts as hand coded web pages.... it belongs in the dark ages.

It's a pity tho, because the practice doesn't work and I think it's way smarter to be doing what the other sites do, that are handling the pictures - so much better.

For Example - go to these pages and click on the "i" on the images and you can see the whole (2032x1354) 468 KB (http://www.instructables.com/files/orig/FMI/55WM/FHY0H93A/FMI55WMFHY0H93A.jpg) images.

http://www.instructables.com/id/Broken-Handle-on-Big-Power-Drill-Make-a-new-one/

http://www.instructables.com/id/A-BRILLIANT--workshop-tool---that-avoids-mostl/

http://www.instructables.com/id/Leather_Molding_Making_a_Watch_Cover/



So I have made the decision that I am not going to post any more pictures here until the owners reprogram the site and remove the archaic "This is the way we have always done it" photo handling software; and the never ending insistence that everyone comply with it - by replacing it with better software.


Yeah, once when I rode my donkey to the very edge of town, I heard from a bloke, who had a mate, who ran into a fellow who didn't look like he was from around these parts, that they have horseless carriges and flying machines too..

Good one Jim Bob's.


Tantrums AND sarcasm, you're really trying hard to make friends aren't you Hamma.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

HH uses Instructables as an example, but although it may handle photos better, as a text-based discussion forum it'd be a dismal failure. It's basically just linked blogs with feedback through comments at the #### end.

It's a bit like complaining about how this site handles videos, then saying it should be more like UTube. :rolleyes:

[ColW]

Damn i think i'll just go sell all my tools, buy a new computer
then subscribe to broadband, i'll keep a screwdriver so i can assemble
those flatpacks that make our lives so much easier these days.

[joe greiner]

And it took you more than a month to discover that?

Jumbo pictures add very little value here, and at most other sites too.

And, just because a video CAN be made, doesn't ensure that it SHOULD be made.

Cheers,
Joe

[Waldo]

Won't be any loss if you don't want to contribute in here.

:bye:

[m2c1Iw]

OK HH I have clicked on the link you provided, don't think that example has much to offer.

Have you considered that WWF stores pics permanently rather than links to other sites. The benefit being they will always be there unlike other forums that only allow an external link. The pic hosting site goes belly up so no more link and no more pics in the post.....aggravating in the extreme.

I should say you have already gathered the current set up works well for many reasons :2tsup:

[witch1]

ham ahead,
too bad we cant have archaic and eat it too
witch1

[m2c1Iw]

ham ahead,
too bad we cant have archaic and eat it too
witch1

You forgot the :D:D:D

[BobL]

I actually do think that the picture policy does needs some attention. Maybe not in the way that HH says but having posted 1,219 attachments that takes up 52.14 MB, ie I'm averaging 43 kB per picture. All of my pictures are 800 x 600 or close to it or approximately 10 pixels per byte.

Since download speed is not proportional to image size but file size and 100 kB is the max file size, why shouldn't someone be permitted to upload a 1000 x 1000 provided it comes in under 100 kb?

Another somewhat irritating aspect is all (landscape or portrait) shots must be under 600 pixels high. What's the difference in download if it is 800 x 600, or 600 x 800? 600 pixel high? Portrait images are all under resolved compared to their 800 pixel wide couterparts and effectively down grade the quality of images provided.

Also what happens when I can't fit something into one picture is I end taking 3 or 4 of them and posting more picts than I need to.

I would rather have 4 pictures of 1000 x 1000 (still under 100 kb) each, than 10 pics at 800 (max wide) x 600 (Max high). The rationale of users have small screens is becoming less significant as more and more users upgrade their gear.

So my suggestion is to up the size to a max of 1000 x 1000 and stick with the 100 kb limit. Not everyone will be able to squeeze their pics hard enough to reach that limit every time anyway but for those that can - what good reason is there not to permit this?

No I will not take my big images and post them elsewhere, I already do that. :D

[rhancock]

It'll be interesting to see if Instructables is still around to celebrate its tenth birthday...

Current stats on WWF: nearly a million posts, over 14,000 active members, at 7.30 on a Wednesday morning, nearly 700 users online.

Understandables: 20 total views, at least the last 7 were generated by this thread...

[Woodwould]

Jumbo pictures add very little value here, and at most other sites too.

The larger the image, the more detail is visible, which can be of imense value. I usually give up on most illustrated threads here because the images are so small and I can seldom see what the poster is describing.



I actually do think that the picture policy does needs some attention. Maybe not in the way that HH says but having posted 1,219 attachments that takes up 52.14 MB, ie I'm averaging 43 kB per picture. All of my pictures are 800 x 600 or close to it or approximately 10 pixels per byte.

Since download speed is not proportional to image size but file size and 100 kB is the max file size, why shouldn't someone be permitted to upload a 1000 x 1000 provided it comes in under 100 kb?

Hear hear!

[Devil's advocate] Even if some members do still have small monitors and dial-up connections, should the majority be held back by the lowest denominator?

[arose62]

While I think the original post could have been phrased much more pleasantly:rolleyes:, what I read as the main point was that on this board, the responsibility for complying with the technical limitations lies with the user.

The suggestion was that this responsibility could be moved to the software that runs this board. IE - wouldn't it be nice if you could just upload, and the *software* would resize the pictures to comply with the chosen and agreed specs for pictures on this board.

Just wondering if anyone has counted the number of posts where the poster has been unable to post pics, or had to be instructed how to, or redirected to another site in order to resize their images.?

Cheers,
Andrew

[jmk89]

The larger the image, the more detail is visible, which can be of imense value. I usually give up on most illustrated threads here because the images are so small and I can seldom see what the poster is describing.

WW - the thumbnails can be difficult to see, but I usually find sufficient detail in the pictures once I double click on the tumbnails and open them!






[Devil's advocate] Even if some members do still have small monitors and dial-up connections, should the majority be held back by the lowest denominator?

ISTR that within the last few months Neil posted stats showing that the "minority" is in fact very large (almost a majority and certainly more than the % of the vote that any winning party in UK elections has received since 1900.

However, once it is clear that dial-up has dwindled to a very small minority of active users, I agree that this justification for image restrictions will have much less weight. As against that there is the issue of storage of uploads and that is where the Boss will have his final say (unless someone is offering free storage....:U)

BTW I also agree with BobL's suggestion.

[Jim Carroll]

By keeping to the normal size image does not impede the users that have dial up etc, we have a lot of people on our mailing list that are unable to recieve our small newsletter because it takes too long to upload because of dialup. Yes there is still a lot out there and yes they do eventually go to broadband if they feel the need.


If you have a photo shop on your computor use that to bring the size down and if you want to highlight a particular part of the photo just crop and save . We dont need extra high resolution to see what is going on as woodies we like to see the overall project with a description of how it was made.

As proven the other day I cant remember the persons name but he had 4 glorious pictures of boxes that were nice and clear and everyone could see what detail he had and he kept those under the limits.

[Andy Mac]

Maybe there is room for further change. I seem to remember there was a size limit of 100kb for photos, and I got used to that with the basic photo program I was using. Then suddenly the parameters changed, which is 800 x 600 or something, and I can't remember the number of times I've attempted to post photos, had them rejected.:( Endless resizings later I'll get lucky.
I'm not overly good with the settings on digital cameras, or computers for that matter, and most photo/imaging software is way over my head. I'm in awe of the few folk here who manage to imbed multiple photos within their post, and mysteriously not go over the size limit!!
I'd much prefer it if there was some program in place that automatically resized things to an optimum. How hard, or how expense to acheive that I have no idea.

Cheers

[blackhole]

The suggestion was that this responsibility could be moved to the software that runs this board. IE - wouldn't it be nice if you could just upload, and the *software* would resize the pictures to comply with the chosen and agreed specs for pictures on this board.



That would be nice but the people who pay to host the forum have to pay for the bigger upload and then waste server resources processing the image making response times slower for the 13999 other people who do crop and resize their images..

[blackhole]

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/downloads/powertoys/xppowertoys.mspx

[Woodwould]

We dont need extra high resolution to see what is going on as woodies we like to see the overall project with a description of how it was made.

Who are the "We" Jim? :q :U

I don't think it's unreasonable to have 800 x 600 as the standard size for images. That would suit everyone - even the majority. :q :U

[BobL]

By keeping to the normal size image does not impede the users that have dial up etc, we have a lot of people on our mailing list that are unable to recieve our small newsletter because it takes too long to upload because of dialup. Yes there is still a lot out there and yes they do eventually go to broadband if they feel the need.

Once again people are confusing Image size with File size. These are not directly related. I can squeeze some of my 800 x 600 images to under 30 k and still retain a high degree of clarity. One trick to doing this is to use a mono background. eg this file is only 28k.
http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=70154&d=1206752920
This one is magnified x 2 so is equivalent in resolution to 1700 x 1200 on the original. The bigger one shows the apricot wood grain a bit clearer but surely it would be nice to see a bit more of it?:D
http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=107550&stc=1&d=1244593814

Here is a recently posted picture of 443 x 336 pixels with a file size of 72 k
http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=107297&d=1244355555
Same picture at almost double the number of pixels (800 x 600) but only 68 k
http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=107547&stc=1&d=1244592560
Of course it does not look as sharp because without access to the original I cannot make the picture any sharper than it actually is but that would not change the file size by much.


If you have a photo shop on your computor use that to bring the size down and if you want to highlight a particular part of the photo just crop and save . We dont need extra high resolution to see what is going on as woodies we like to see the overall project with a description of how it was made.
Sorry I disagree, When Derek posts pictures of a new tool I want to see the whole tool and every detail in detail. What happens is some people end up posting multiple picts to be able to show this detail. As I said


As proven the other day I cant remember the persons name but he had 4 glorious pictures of boxes that were nice and clear and everyone could see what detail he had and he kept those under the limits.
That was probably because there was no significant amount of fine detail to see.

At the very least portrait shots should have the same pixel number rights as landscape shots so the limit should be raised to 800 x 800 pixels.

[chrisb691]

You forgot the :D:D:D
Maybe he thought he had to resize them. :roflmao:

[Big Shed]

The larger the image, the more detail is visible, which can be of imense value. I usually give up on most illustrated threads here because the images are so small and I can seldom see what the poster is describing.






I don't think it's unreasonable to have 800 x 600 as the standard size for images. That would suit everyone - even the majority. :q :U

Aren't you contradicting youself here? Current limit is 800x600, yet you say you usually give up because the images are too small?:?

[silentC]

When Derek posts pictures of a new tool I want to see the whole tool and every detail in detail.
Try Ctrl+ :)

[BobL]

Try Ctrl+ :)

Huh? since when does ctrl+ generate new pixels that are not present in the posted picture?

[silentC]

It doesn't. It's a joke. Lighten up. :rolleyes:

[Spanner69]

So I have made the decision that I am not going to post any more pictures here


ok ...... bye.

[Woodwould]

Aren't you contradicting youself here? Current limit is 800x600, yet you say you usually give up because the images are too small?:?

There aren't too many people post 800 x 600 pictures because they can't get them below the 100kb limit. I'd prefer 800 x 600 as the limit rather than 100kb.

[Wongo]

You need to add this if you are telling jokes.

http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=107552&stc=1&d=1244598595

[wheelinround]

One consideration I didn't spot in all these posts is The Server storage needed for all the large photo's cost of procuring and paying for it. After all it is a FREE Forum and service. Yes the forum does have sponsors
The other consideration is Australia's net speed unlike US and other parts of the world we fair lousy.

[m2c1Iw]

Wongo this is a serious discussion :smack:

:Dx1000

[steven]

One consideration I didn't spot in all these posts is The Server storage needed for all the large photo's cost of procuring and paying for it.

There are close to 100,000 attachments the ave size is only 57KB, well under the limit.

regards

[HammaHed]

On the instructables site, it's really great.

I just take my pics, upload them as is, and then the site reduces the image for display on the web page, BUT if I want to see the same image in a larger size, all I have to do is click on it - and 2 clicks later I have gone from a small browser friendly "Low Resolution image" up to a fairly large image, and then to the full size original picture.

The really good thing about the Instructables system is that with the 3 tiers of image and file size is that I can put up really great images that have both SIZE and a really high resolution - with is great for FINE detail - especially when doing work down to 1/10 ths of a millimeter.

(You might have to join up to see the images... but anyway.)

As shown here - as the low res image on the web page

http://www.instructables.com/id/A-BRILLIANT--workshop-tool---that-avoids-mostl/

To the high resolution image it's self.

http://www.instructables.com/files/orig/FMI/55WM/FHY0H93A/FMI55WMFHY0H93A.jpg

For me as it stands, even fairly pox and basic digital cameras are operating at about 6+ megapixels, and all this dicking around to reduce the image size AND the file size down to these tiny and inconvenient proportions - well it's like dealing with Telstra.... it's not something I want to do any more.

I am not prepared to allocate 1 or 2 hours on any nights to be readjusting a heap of images, especially for this site.

I also really want to see big high resolution images - for the detail they contain.

So I am saying to Neil - perhaps it's time to upgrade this site to using the same or better system that the Intructables crowd is running.

Most people are on broad band, and those who can get it but won't or can't upgrade to even low speed broadband, the Instructables site still caters fairly well for them.

Like long cues at the check out - the servers are bogging down too.......

[BobL]

It doesn't. It's a joke. Lighten up. :rolleyes:
Sorry - I missed the emoticon. :2tsup:

RE: 100,000 attachments the ave size is only 57KB,
Hummmm . . . that's a total of only 5.7 Gb - I wouldn't consider that a problem for any half decent server to handle - storage space is relatively cheap. I have 15,000 images taking up 17 Gb on my aging (4 year old) lap top (plus about 150 Gb of images on CDs and DVDs) - not quite the same I know. I guess it depends on the marginal cost of web server space which we are not (and neither should we be) privy to.

RE: 6 Megapixel images.
I don't reckon any image need to be bigger than the average screen available at the time. 5 years ago this was 1024 x 768 now we are in the 1280 x 960 or more screen space which is why I reckon 1000 x 1000 is ample - since that will fill most screens (allowing for the usual side border and top menu info).

RE: One consideration I didn't spot in all these posts is The Server storage needed for all the large photo's cost of procuring and paying for it. After all it is a FREE Forum and service. Yes the forum does have sponsors
I agree - given it is a free forum it's excellent value for money!

RE:The other consideration is Australia's net speed unlike US and other parts of the world we fair lousy.
True but I'm not suggesting ANY increase in allowable file size - I'm just asking to stick to the current 100 kb or less but allowing image size to be lifted to 1000 x 1000.

[Waldo]

I am not prepared to allocate 1 or 2 hours on any nights to be readjusting a heap of images, especially for this site.

Takes me all of 2 seconds in iPhoto to reduce a massive photo down to 600x800 pixels, save it, open it in Photoshop and save for web and 2 seconds later it's ready to upload.

Let's give that 2 minutes all up including getting the shot off the camera.

Then maybe a maximum of 1 minute to upload 10 shots into my thread and I'm done.

:?

I've got a tea cup, anyone have a storm?

[Lignum]

I am not prepared to allocate 1 or 2 hours on any nights to be readjusting a heap of images, especially for this site.


So how many photos do you want to upload onto this site? 100, 200? So why would it take you a few hours a night to do it? It takes me no more than a minute to reduce a photo to 800x 600. I don’t see what your issue is.



especially for this site.


Why "especially for this site" Is their something wrong with it.:?

[silentC]

Must admit it's never been an issue for me either. It's more of a hassle getting the camera and taking the photos and then downloading them to the computer.

The only thing that annoys me about images on this site is when they are embedded as links rather than thumbnails and you're trying to read a post somewhere down the page and it keeps disappearing off the screen as the browser downloads each image one by one. Hate that. It could be fixed if the vBulletin software put height and width attributes on the image tags.

[Wongo]

It takes X seconds to reduce a picture from 26M to 26K.

It takes Y seconds more to load a 2.6M picture than a 26K picture to the server.

It takes Z seconds more to load a 2.6M picture than a 26K picture on the browser.

:think: Does Y + Z > X ?

I think so. :D


Also why jam up the servers with 2.6M pictures when you don't need to?

[kevjed]

1000x1000 with 100K limit would be nice if it where doable.
Kevin

[44Ronin]

You can post pics as large as you want

[Wongo]

Now try load that picture to your account.

[silentC]

You can post pics as large as you want
Yeah and that's what annoys me the most. I run my screen resolution at 1280x1024 but a picture like that embedded in a post throws the whole thread off the right hand side of my screen so that I have to scroll to read all of the text in each post. It sh*ts me no end when people do that. Fine if you have a widescreen monitor, but not everyone does.

Put it up as a thumbnail so that at least I have the choice whether to download the whole thing to my computer or not. Why should it be forced upon me? :)

There is also the issue of what happens to threads in 5 years time when that site disappears off the net.

Edit: See, you have now stuffed this thread. Every time I open it I have to scroll to the right. Pain in the asre.

[DJ’s Timber]

You can post pics as large as you want

Actually you can not, images regardless of whether they're uploaded via the forum or hosted off site somewhere like Photobucket etc, must conform to the forum's requirements which are either 800 x 600 or 600 x 800.

Any images that are over this size will be A: rejected by the forum's software if uploaded as an attachment or B: If hosted elsewhere, the poster will be asked to resize it or faced getting it removed

[Wongo]

.

[silentC]

Well, there's nothing wrong with that one because it doesn't stuff up the page width like the previous one did.

[Lignum]

Yeah and that's what annoys me the most. I run my screen resolution at 1280x1024 but a picture like that embedded in a post throws the whole thread off the right hand side of my screen so that I have to scroll to read all of the text in each post. It sh*ts me no end when people do that

My biggest pet hate apart from pen turning, are those posters who insist on embedding a huge photo instead of a thumbnail. Why do they do it? Is it the forumites equivalent of little man syndrome

[Grumpy John]

I use Quick Photo Resizer with the default small setting at 800 x 600 and file size no more than 95K. The program automatically re-orients between landscape and portrait and does the job almost instantaneously. The program saves the file with _small added so you still have the orginal picture. Anyone who wishes to see any of my pictures in their 3920 x 2613, 7.8 meg glory only has to email me and I'll forward them, might take a while though :D.

[snowyskiesau]

I agree that embedded photos are a pain!
Is there any way that the forum can be configured to only allow thumbnails?

[BobL]

My biggest pet hate apart from pen turning, are those posters who insist on embedding a huge photo instead of a thumbnail. Why do they do it? Is it the forumites equivalent of little man syndrome

I agree, pen turning also definitely not my cup of tea, and huge photos are silly, but use of thumbnails can be just as daft. Much of thumbnail use is a left over technology from a slow web and "because we can" - all of my old websites look like that. Thumbnails are well suited for image management, like file or photo albums, and headline or home pages, side banners and ads. Reasonable size images (not thumbnails) embedded with explanatory text or alongside other images actually improves communication. While it is still done, it's increasingly common to see feature articles by on-line newspapers or magazines integrating images and text into the same window. The reason that many commercial websites do not show even higher resolution images is that they do is probably because they do not want their IP pinched.

The problems associated with the use of thumbnails really stand out for labeled or detailed pictures that directly related to associated text (which in the case of the WWF is pretty common), or when comparing images. Communication degrades when having to open, resize, move and then continually switch between a number of windows to locate a label or look at some detail in pairs of images, or between image and text based windows. It's much easier to follow any online discussion if the info is all there in the same window laid out in a logical and linear fashion. If someone posts a stack of thumbnails loosely associated with a WWF detailed post, I often skip the entire post.

[DJ’s Timber]

Thumbnails can also be embedded into the post rather than at the end such as weisyboy has done here (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=98086)

A how to is explained here (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=78760)

[Groggy]

I prefer thumbnails for a few reasons:

- you can fit more posts on the screen with a thumbnail.
- the thread loads quicker and doesn't hang while the pic from hell loads,
- mobile devices trying to scroll the forums are slowed by the pics and typically have less bandwidth than a PC. Mobile devices are becoming a lot more popular (phones, PDAs, iPhones etc).

[silentC]

If someone posts a stack of thumbnails loosely associated with a WWF detailed post, I often skip the entire post.
It's interesting isn't it, because I'm quite the opposite. I find that if someone has embedded full size pics in the middle of a post, I miss bits of the text, usually because the post is jumping around as the images are downloaded. I have to go back and read it again sometimes to see what I've missed - and of course sometimes I don't bother, but then that is my loss isn't it :)

Whereas a post like Weisy's with the images embedded as thumbnails makes it much easier to read the text. Not that I particularly wanted to see him in his jocks...

What I like about thumbnails is that I have the choice whether or not I want to see the full size version. Sometimes I'll just select one or two images that look like they'll show me what I want to see. And they don't interfere with the text.

[snowyskiesau]

There's one forum (http://www.iceinspace.com.au) I go to that only supports thumbnails.
When you click on a thumbnail, it opens another tab/window to view the picture full size. In the same window, you can see all other thumbnails associated with the post and have to option to view them as desired.

While iceinspace do run the same vbulletin (http://www.vbulletin.com/) software, I'm not sure on the status of the plugin/module that performs this picture display.

(Sorry about the quality of the screen grab - 100KB limitation :) )

[HazzaB]

Hey Hammahed,

Like all the young people are saying, "Build a Bridge and get over it":D:D We ALL can't have everything that we Want:((. You are getting something for nothing and still complaining, Jeeez:no:

End of Rant

HazzaB

[seanz]

I prefer thumbnails for a few reasons:

- you can fit more posts on the screen with a thumbnail.
- the thread loads quicker and doesn't hang while the pic from hell loads,
- mobile devices trying to scroll the forums are slowed by the pics and typically have less bandwidth than a PC. Mobile devices are becoming a lot more popular (phones, PDAs, iPhones etc).

I'll second that.

I like how this forum handles pics and if I didn't I could just provide a link to a photo hosting website because it's not up to a forum to show your photos. It's nice that they do but it's not written down anywhere that they have to.

Threads load easier and the post you are reading is less likely to









jump







all over the screen if you use thumbnails.



:roll:

[joe greiner]

1. Network speed: In olden times (Morse code radio), network speed was governed by the slowest operator, to ensure that all recipients got all messages - somewhat frustrating for the faster operators. BUT, vitally important in wartime, perhaps less so here.

2. Thumbnails: At the AAW forum (also VBulletin), clicking thumbnails automatically opens in a new window, I've just learned. There's a VBulletin forum for VBulletin itself, which may enlighten some of the multitude of options available.

Cheers,
Joe

[BobL]

- the thread loads quicker and doesn't hang while the pic from hell loads,

I rarely hang around waiting for anything to load. When I reawaken my laptop I already have at least 5 applications running and my browser has about 10 key tabs/pages auto open from up to 10 different sites 2 from outside Australia. I don't bother switching to pages to read them until the download/upload is complete. No waiting.

What I dislike doing is starting to read something and then find I have to click on thumbnails to see the associated pictures, then I do have to wait because I am in the middle of reading the text. I find the most efficient way to cover a lot of ground is to start a download, go do something else useful, and then read the downloaded article/page in its entirety.


- mobile devices trying to scroll the forums are slowed by the pics and typically have less bandwidth than a PC. Mobile devices are becoming a lot more popular (phones, PDAs, iPhones etc).
Thumbnails on mobile devices are about as useless as a squashed ant in between the screen cover and the screen.

[martrix]

I rarely hang around waiting for anything to load. When I reawaken my laptop I already have at least 5 applications running and my browser has about 10 key tabs/pages auto open from up to 10 different sites 2 from outside Australia. I don't bother switching to pages to read them until the download/upload is complete. No waiting.

What I dislike doing is starting to read something and then find I have to click on thumbnails to see the associated pictures, then I do have to wait because I am in the middle of reading the text. I find the most efficient way to cover a lot of ground is to start a download, go do something else useful, and then read the downloaded article/page in its entirety.
.

lol, that's exactly what I think and do too. I'm on a 22" widescreen and Ive got about 12 tabs going.

[BobL]

lol, that's exactly what I think and do too. I'm on a 22" widescreen and Ive got about 12 tabs going.

:D I'm guessing you have more tabs on RC cars than I have on CS sites?

[pawnhead]

Sorry, I haven't read this whole thread, but here's my two bobs worth.
Apart from thinking that the OP was being a bit rude, I liked this post:
The suggestion was that this responsibility could be moved to the software that runs this board. IE - wouldn't it be nice if you could just upload, and the *software* would resize the pictures to comply with the chosen and agreed specs for pictures on this board.

Just wondering if anyone has counted the number of posts where the poster has been unable to post pics, or had to be instructed how to, or redirected to another site in order to resize their images.?

Cheers,
AndrewGood point.

I use my free Photobucket account generally, because I can keep track of my photos for use on other websites, emails, link to my entire private album, and I can delete the whole lot if I choose to do so. I like having control over my photos and albums, but Photobucket resizes the images to 650 pixels wide.

At the moment I’m working on some drawings for my new bathroom to get estimates on all the glass and mirrors that I’ll be installing. I was going to post the drawings here to get opinions and perhaps ideas. With Photobucket or the forums hosting I’d have to break it up into several pics so you could read the details, so instead, I’ll use my free Imageshack account.

These drawings are unfinished (I’ve yet to finish drawing the vanity along with other elevations and a floor plan), and I’m going to make all the text a lot smaller so it’s not as obtrusive when you zoom in for a close look. There's more text to go in yet and I'd have trouble fitting it unless it's reduced.

If you click the thumbnail it brings you to my Imageshack page, and if you click the photo again you’ll get the original. The size of the image is written underneath;

http://img29.imageshack.us/img29/9079/composite1.th.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/my.php?image=composite1.jpg)

This next one involves a bit of trickery with the HTML code because I’m linking the full sized image with another copy that I’ve reduced to 650 pixels wide. If you click the image you'll get the original (slightly different) version:

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/6835/test1l.jpg (http://img29.imageshack.us/my.php?image=composite1.jpg)


If I linked the full sized image, it would distort the whole page and bugger up everyones posts. (If they write more than a short line, it will keep wandering over to the right, and you'd have to scroll.)

Here's the ceiling plan showing the perimeter mirrors, the mirror over the shower, and the mirrors on the laundry cupboard walls if anyone is interested;

http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/3393/zbathroomceiling.th.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zbathroomceiling.jpg)

[Lignum]

And this annoys me sooooo much (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showpost.php?p=968601&postcount=35)


All that for a few thumbs up:~






.

[Woodwould]

And this annoys me sooooo much (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showpost.php?p=968601&postcount=35)


All that for a few thumbs up:~.

Should I have used Tasmanian Blackwood?

[silentC]

I don't think he's talking about your table, I think he's talking about Phil including all of your embedded photos in a quote of your post within his, which is the default behaviour if you choose to quote someone's post. It's totally unnecessary but people do it all the time. That's another annoying thing about embedded images.

This thread (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=43923) demonstrates how it causes confusion. Post #12 embedded a photo of a Preston bullnose rebate plane. Post #14 was in reply to #12 and the poster quoted post #12 in his reply, which included the full size embedded photo. He attached his own photo of a Record 077 as a thumbnail and said "Here's a picture of my 077". Two and a half years later someone comes along and, seeing the large embedded photo of the Preston in post #14, tells us that the photo is not of a Record 077 but of a Preston.

But the only real issue I have with embedded images is what happens when you delete them from your online image hosting account? They will all disappear from the posts. If you upload them to WWF, then they will be there as long as this site is here.

You can embed an image from the forum the same as from any other site:

http://www.woodworkforums.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=106161&d=1243234754

[Woodwould]

I don't think he's talking about your table...

I know, I was being silly and frivolous.

So how do you embed photos that are hosted by the forum?

[BobL]

But the only real issue I have with embedded images is what happens when you delete them from your online image hosting account? They will all disappear from the posts. If you upload them to WWF, then they will be there as long as this site is here.

I agree embedding from another site is a bad idea. There was a poster on another forum that contributed a heap of good info from his business website. Then his business went bellyup and all his pics all vanished.

Quoting and leaving the images embedded for a thumbs up - yep high annoyance factor but no more so than quoting a long text post for the same thing.

[silentC]

I know, I was being silly and frivolous.

So how do you embed photos that are hosted by the forum?
Sorry, I thought that might be the case. It's very hard to tell sometimes when your leg is being pulled :)

There are probably easier ways but all I did was to open the image by clicking on the thumbnail, and then right click on the expanded image, click Properties, copy the URL from Location, click the "Insert image" button in the editor and paste that address into it.

[Woodwould]

There are probably easier ways but all I did was to open the image by clicking on the thumbnail, and then right click on the expanded image, click Properties, copy the URL from Location, click the "Insert image" button in the editor and paste that address into it.

I use the same method when copying images from external sources, but how do you get the image source from images on this forum (assuming you're posting new pictures); do you place them in an album first, or is there another method I'm unaware of?

[DJ’s Timber]

Try this Woodwould, not exactly the same but allows you to put the thumbnail anywhere into the post

Posting Pictures to Your Post (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=78760)

In the case of silentC's pic in post 68, the image already exists elsewhere in another thread (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=97108) on the forum and what he has done is copied the URL of that image and inserted the image here as well.

[Woodwould]

Thanks DJ, I saw that link in your previous post. It doesn't really adress the issue though.

Can I upload larger images into an album on the forum and then insert the full size images into my threads, or are album images limited to 100kb too? (I'm a believer in showing detail where it's waranted).

[DJ’s Timber]

You can upload images into an Album here on the forum, your album can be located by going to User CP then Pictures & Albums located under Networking. But the albums are restricted to 600 x 600 / 100kb from memory, also there is a limit to how many you can store in there as well, think its 100 images.

The other way is to do what a few others do, that is to upload images as normal and then open the image from the Manage Attachments popup and then copy the URL from there and then insert the image before you submit the post or thread, the only drawback with this is is still leaves the thumbnails at the bottom of the post such as shown here in one of BobL's post (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showpost.php?p=960703&postcount=1) of which I personally don't like, I'd rather the thumbnails were embedded into the text and I had the choice on whether to open them or not, rather than Bob forcing the choice onto me as he has already done it.

This is where we get the most complaints from people when there is a thread with lots of inserted images as it does slow things down especially for those that are on a slower connection or on dial-up or when the images are wider than the set limit of 800 as it forces people to scroll across the screen.

[Woodwould]

You can upload images into an Album here on the forum, your album can be located by going to User CP then Pictures & Albums located under Networking. But the albums are restricted to 600 x 600 / 100kb from memory, also there is a limit to how many you can store in there as well, think its 100 images.

Ah, so that defeats that idea.


The other way is to do what a few others do, that is to upload images as normal and then open the image from the Manage Attachments popup and then copy the URL from there and then insert the image before you submit the post or thread, the only drawback with this is is still leaves the thumbnails at the bottom of the post such as shown here in one of BobL's post (http://www.woodworkforums.com/showpost.php?p=960703&postcount=1) of which I personally don't like, I'd rather the thumbnails were embedded into the text and I had the choice on whether to open them or not, rather than Bob forcing the choice onto me as he has already done it.

It doesn't really bother me, though I do find it quite needless having duplicate images within the same post. I wondered how it was done.


This is where we get the most complaints from people when there is a thread with lots of inserted images as it does slow things down especially for those that are on a slower connection or on dial-up or when the images are wider than the set limit of 800 as it forces people to scroll across the screen.

I'm afraid I'm a proponent of the large image within text in my posts. It stems from book writing and IMO, affords the reader enhanced understanding of what's being described. I realise some (the majority, I'm informed!) members have slower connections and state they find this irksome, but unless I'm breaking forum guidelines, I'll continue to do so.

Talking about slow connections; I've got Optusnet's largest ADSL package and my connection speed is routinely slower than when I had a dial-up service! :~

[powderpost]

Geez, just read all the posts in this thread, now I got a head ache... :). I am more that happy, almost ecstatic if my post and pictures, thumb prints or what ever they are called, appears on the screen. I reduce the "size" or whatever, somehow, but it seems to work. Please don't make it any more confusing for me at this stage of my career.... my head hurts. :- :).
Jim

[joe greiner]

A downside to the large images just posted, as well as the link from Lignum, is that the images are available for viewing and downloading WITHOUT being logged in, or even registered. About 1 1/2 years ago, downloading traffic became so heavy, that embedded images were restricted to logged-in users, as also used on the AAW forum and SawMill Creek. This made it awkward to provide links to WWF from email and elsewhere, but 'twas all for the better, IMHO.

And, here's another reason for restricting image access: http://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=81532 (#14):((

Cheers,
Joe

[BobL]

I'm afraid I'm a proponent of the large image within text in my posts. It stems from book writing and IMO, affords the reader enhanced understanding of what's being described.

Yep - that's what I think too. I write and review technical reports and scientific papers for scientific/technical journals and the web. I've written stuff for the web since 1994 covering topics from beer to nuclear physics and analysed web user click responses, time on page data, thumbnail v text clicks etc for my sites. Full size embedded images within web pages are generally more effective at engaging and retaining readers in expository technical writing for the web. Some of the posts within WWF are well within that scope, others are not and do not need embedded images - especially given some of the images are not worth the pixels they occupy. Like I posted earlier, thumbnails are fine for photo albums. menus and home pages. If you are sitting and waiting for pages to download you are not using the web as efficiently as you could be.

[HammaHed]

OK the original reason I spat chips about the issue of reducing images to both dimensions and file sizes is because:

a) I post lots of articles on lots of other sites; and one of my favourites is Instructables.

That has the feature or programming of being able to upload ones images as is; and then

Display the image in a reduced, but fairly reasonably sized image - on the web page; and

With two more clicks, one can then jump from the "smaller" image to a medium image and then to the full sized image.

I reckon that system works really great.

In this enlightened age of vested self centeredness, and the tendancy to perceive ones own range of expereinces and facilites as applicable to everyone else... like yelling at the starving people on TV in Africa - in the middle of the desert "We if you want a drink ha ha ha - why don't you just turn on the tap - ha ha ha"...

Where the frustration comes into this for me, is that while I can reduce images down in dimensional size and file size - the software I have for doing these process's - and I have a fair range at my disposal; well the best and easiest software works fine for general reduction - fast and easy and they do batches etc., to really begin to push the limits down to very small sizes - especially the file size; well it kind of gets to be frustrating guessing the amounts of reduction for different images and their image content.

So I get to be thinking...... this is just too much effort, and after using the really "up to date" websites, I feel as if I realy don't want to be doing these kinds of reductions and image modifications - specifically for this site.

And while the opinions run thick and fast along the lines of "My reality is everyone elses too" - the lack of objective imformation is where the matters raised in this fashion become invalid.

For instance, even pox $120 digital cameras take really good images at 6 or 7 Megapixel images. $600 + cameras are shooting at 14+ Megapixels. And they just keep right on getting SOOOO much better from there.

So reducing really good images - while SOME reduction is propbably a good thing; the excessively small reduction is becoming excessive - like upgrading to a 486 computer.

Going back to the "Instructables site" and the tiers of image size available for clicking through too;

While SOME people may be on dial up, I think there is an awful lot who are on broadband - and by using the "Instructables" website of handling images, that would cater for everyone; but having moved off dial up a few years back, dial up has as much appeal as upgrading to a 486; and backing all my stuff up on floppies.

So I put that forward that the broadband users ARE in the overwhelming majority and dial up users are in the kind of extreme minority - and by using the "Instructables" webistes method of handling images, as slow as dial up actually is - this format still caters for everyone.

I also hear screeches of "server space etc.," while not being utterly ofay with every detail of every server setup; for those who are doing the Luddite proclaimations - in case you had not noticed 1 Terrabyte SATA drives with 32M of cache can be had for around $130...

I also see a few people proclaiming how wonderful this site is, they are doing it all for us, for free...

Well not it's not. It's the posters who contribute to generating the through traffic - that becomes the revenue stream for the advertisers and the site owners....

10,000 people come through, 1000 might become regulars; 500 might become regular purchases of these advertisers and owners products.....

I don't know the exact stats; but this site is a business; it's not a touchy feely free for all paid for by the owners, out of their own pockets; with no return on their investment.


Setting aside the issues of "My perspective is the how the world operates" and the countering of these misunderstandings with fact - to get back to my original point - being the very reason for my starting this thread;.

From some of the more insightful and market savvy posters along with my own frustrations at taking backward looking steps to cater for this sites image handling; I feel that there are many good personal and buisness reasons for improving and upgrading the sites image handling capabilites.

[pawnhead]

"My reality is everyone elses too" No offence Hamma, but I'm not sure that it is. :wink:


Going back to the "Instructables site" That's a good idea since you rave about it so much. :2tsup: Just roll that big stone back over the cave entrance on your way out. :p

for those who are doing the Luddite proclaimationsThere's no Luddites here buddy, just us darkside chippies banging away with our stone tools.


I'm happy with this joint the way it is. I can post big pics with a free off-site hosting account, which is the way I prefer to do it anyway.

To put that in plain English for you;
Sorry, if perchance you've found my chosen words to be contrary to what you may have hoped for under more favourable conditions, but I find after much analysis, that your manner and attitude are quite condescending.
That's just my opinion of course.

[Blarney]

I think you are talking out your sphincter HH.

[Grumpy John]

.......................
I also see a few people proclaiming how wonderful this site is, they are doing it all for us, for free...

Well not it's not. It's the posters who contribute to generating the through traffic - that becomes the revenue stream for the advertisers and the site owners....

10,000 people come through, 1000 might become regulars; 500 might become regular purchases of these advertisers and owners products.....

I don't know the exact stats; but this site is a business; it's not a touchy feely free for all paid for by the owners, out of their own pockets; with no return on their investment.
...................


HH, I'm pretty sure Neil is only covering costs by having advertising on the fourms. If you're so concerned about the way pictures are handled here why don't you offer ................. forget it, just p!55 off.

[silentC]

In this enlightened age of vested self centeredness, and the tendancy to perceive ones own range of expereinces and facilites as applicable to everyone else... like yelling at the starving people on TV in Africa - in the middle of the desert "We if you want a drink ha ha ha - why don't you just turn on the tap - ha ha ha"...
??

I think you need to reduce the dosage a bit, nurse...

[Ian Smith]

HH - I (and most other respondents to this thread it seems) didn't like your first post and your subsequent ones haven't improved - you're no loss to this forum.

On yer bike mate, I'm sure your "Instructables" have a home for you

Ian

[m2c1Iw]

I seem to recall a joke that ended with........"you're not here for the hunting are you" think it kind of applies here.

Mike......looking forward to the next episode :D

[Calm]

.

What a load of crap that post was - i started by highlighting the bits i disagreed (wanted to mention in my reply) on then noticed most of what you posted was highlighted so thought WHAT THE.........

Sometimes i read posts on this great forum
(that is there for all, yep that includes those that are not technical computer yuppies, and costs nothing to use)
that just make me shake my head and wonder why the hell you are on this sight/forum when it so backward and obviously doesnt cater to you needs.

With 16 posts/contributions to date it astounds me that you are still around, what with your extensive knowledge of the business world and how it operates i think you should start your own forum up - that way you can have big pics and all the other things you cant have here.

Oh by the way how much has this forum cost you to use to date - yep thought so absolutely nothing, yet all of what you have contributed was checked by someone to ensure it was relevant, not abusive, and didnt leave the forum owner in a litigious situation.

Maybe you should use you extensive computer knowledge to track down the basics of commercial reality and that may explain why you dont pay but the owner has his costs covered by advertising.

Just my opinion of course but i think its right.

Cheers

[rat52]

I have taken a lot of pix of various projects I have done but I haven't posted them for the reason that I don't have the time to sit and type it out (8 wpm) online and then place the pix

Derek's posts are very easy to read but I don't have the knowledge to do it the way he does

Is there a way to compile the post ,with pix, in word or something similar and then post it?

I know this is probably not the place to ask this question but I have been following this thread with interest and have picked up some ideas on how the photo placement works

[Groggy]

Clearly experiences and preferences will vary. At work we generate and publish a 10,000+ page detailed procedure manual every three months. Initially we had in-line photographs and tables but after constant feedback from our 15000 occasional users, 7000 daily users, studies by external web and document design companies and reviews of usability by our information technology group we have modified the approach.

We now publish mostly text. Photos or graphics are only included in-line where they are essential to understanding the process. Any other supporting or reference material is hyperlinked. If a user wants to see the material they click on the link and a new window opens.

By doing this we achieve the minimum time to load the page and the least bandwidth to get the job done. For the user who wants a bit more information they can access the info as required. For those who do not wish to see the additional info they don't have to. For those who revisit the page they do not have to reload non-essential information they have already seen.

For our situation in these forums I see thumbnails as a practical compromise, especially when there is no consensus of opinion and users have different methods of reading the forums. Ultimately the decision is Neil's of course, and I suspect that while he has members with opinions on both sides of the fence he will try to remain in the middle.

[Wongo]

:slap2: Shut up Groggy, what are you talking about?

[corbs]

:bewarespam: :dnfnoob: :war:
:rico: :worthless: (I was going for irony here:;)

:ban:

[Ashore]

HH this forum is over 10 years old and the cost of starting and running for that time has not always been paid for by the adds, when it started neil had his hand in his pocket and it took years to get into even paying for itself.
You are here 5 minutes and rant on about what the forum should do , the funny thing is and you proberly don't even see it , on other forums if you had criticized the way it was run you would have been out on your ear here they let everyone have a fair go , and if you do come up with something worthwhile that is justified then I am sure neil will allow it , I have seen many changes in what can be posted and how its posted originating from members, in your case though your idea is not suitable for this forum at this time , open your mind and get away from your tunnel vision that you are right and realize that there are far smarter people than you out there and some are running this forum , forums don't get this successful being run by dolts with fly by night ideas who can't see the big picture :rolleyes:

[Grumpy John]

Well spoken Ashore :brava.

[Waldo]

:whs: that Ashore said. :2tsup:

Well written Ashore.

[witch1]

ham ahead,
you are so full of your own importance, and so obviously keen to tell everybody about it, you are really giving me the humpache.
my old dad used to use an expression " full of pi## and wind like the barbers cat" I think it fits you like a glove.
I dont think you would recognise the"BIG PICTURE " if it fell off the wall on your head.
I hope you realise I am trying to annoy you otherwise i have wasted my time.
do you feel insulted?
OK now I want you to go away and lie down and be very very quiet and dont annoy the woodwork forum guys anymore.
if you come back do it with your hat in hand and tail between your legs and stop your whining
witch1

[witch1]

I FEEL BETTER NOW
witch1

[BobL]

:slap2: Shut up Groggy, what are you talking about?

Yeah I agree - anyone who publishes a 10,000 page user manual on the web (never mind the pictures) should be lined up against a wall and have the 10,000 pages read to them in swahili!

[BobL]

As for instructibles . . . . . . I'd hardly be holding them up as a measure of web site communications, I note they have how to's on making bongs.

[joe greiner]

Is there a way to compile the post ,with pix, in word or something similar and then post it?

Quote rat52 (#88) "Is there a way ..." (this is a temporary marker)

Yes, there is. The simplest way I've found is to compose the text in NotePad, with markers or picture list in the text itself. All this is while connected (or not) offline. Set Format to Word Wrap OFF for uploading, and add bells and whistles in the upload editor. Then use the picture list for browsing under Manage Attachments. Sometimes I delete the list before submitting; sometimes I don't.

DJ's earlier post describes how to move pictures within the post. I haven't found it necessary yet.

My objectives in posting have usually been to convey the maximum information with the least effort for both me and the reader. Occasionally I succeed.:-

Cheers,
Joe

[rat52]

Thanks for the reply Joe

I'll give it a try