Photo posting whinge.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Big Shed, I run @ 1280x960 and there's still the occasional pic that doesn't fit... mainly embedded pix, 'cos of the box down the LH side of the screen.

If those pics don't fit on your monitor it must be very old or you have the resolution set very low Maybe you need to get a better graphics card or monitor>either are not very dear >You spend a lot of time on this site so It would be well worth it.
Personally I think 800 x 600 is a bit out of date with the cheap gear and fast internet we deserve better pics of some things not worse in 2009.

Aussie, many older people use low resolutions because of failing eye-sight, not because of HW limitations. 800x600 is a good size, in that it gives a good combination of text & icon sizes while still putting a page worth of info on screen.

Sure, they could bump the resolution up and then fiddle with a whole series of tweaks for larger icons, font sizes, rah, rah, rah... but this is a quick way to lose members because it makes viewing the forums a PITA. Especially if they're not comfortable with computers in the first place.

The KISS principle applies in any good web page.

[Big Shed]

Big Shed, I run @ 1280x960 and there's still the occasional pic that doesn't fit... mainly embedded pix, 'cos of the box down the LH side of the screen.

Skew, that got me curious, so I checked my settings, 1400x1050. Might explain why I don't have a problem

[Honorary Bloke]

Never meant to seem like a grumpy old . . . It isn't the pics, anyway, is it? It's the result that the accompanying text flows past the screen edge that is the real aggravation.

I'm not that old () but 1024 is about my limit for readability.

Aussie, no I don't have this problem on other sites except other forums whenever the pics are posted as a link rather than uploaded. It is a consistent problem across forums, but few other places.

I am an equal-opportunity whinger and they are getting theirs.

Thanks Big Shed, everything is oojah cum spiff now.

[AUSSIE]

Hi Skew
I am close to one of the old farts you are talking about.In my 60's bad eyesite and failing body.Been into computers since around 1980 and love them.Only been into wood for around 18mths to 2 years Half that time getting enough gear to make something

[.RC.]

Mate, I freely admit my 19" flat panel monitor set at 1024 X 768 is getting old at 18 months, but I still didn't get the pic in the screen.

eeeekk a 19inch LCD screen set to 1024X768...That would have everything blurry, it should be set to 1280X1024..LCD monitors do not show crisp clean text/images on anything other then it's native resolution.. Totally different to old CRT's where it did not matter what the resolution was..

As for the 800X600 image size limit...After getting my images edited by a mod a couple of times I do not bother posting them anymore, it is terribly small size picture then ends up showing nothing, especially if it is text....So I just supply a link, people can look at them if they wish...The maximum should be 1280 wide in my opinion, although having a 24" monitor tends to spoil me...

I just like big pictures, even when I was on dialup I hated small pictures..

[Woodwould]

I agree about the small picture size. The hosted pictures on this forum barely up-size at all when the thumbnails are clicked. Where's the point?

I understand our benefactor would wish to conserve space and bandwidth, but to what detriment? If bandwidth is an issue, please let us subscribe to the forums and enjoy decent, viewable pictures!

If the box on the LH side was removed it would solve a lot of the problems.

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Woodwould, the solution to that is what .RC. is already doing.

If the picture "needs" to be larger than the Forum's limits, then post them in a picture hosting site and include a link. That way people can follow the link if they're interested and not be "forced" to download it whether they want to or not.

Further, I don't consider myself a prolific picture poster but over the years I've UL'd 588 attachments, taking up some 20 odd MB of the servers hard-drive space. Not that much, in the grand scheme of things, but I'm only one out of... how many members?

And it's Neil, Mr UBeaut, who's carrying the cost of storing them.

If these were double the size - at the same compression - they'd take up four times the space. Again, multiply that by the number of members... [shudder]

But I guess it's always easy to talk about spending someone else's money.

[joe greiner]

The big problem with external hosting is that the external host may go belly up, and the pictures are gone forever. I think that's been mentioned in the FAQs here. The external host may have a different maintenance schedule from the forum, and viewing must be synchronized with a possibly longer downtime - another PITA. WWF membership spans the entire planet, so all time zones are accessible.

The left-hand side boxes are a recent upgrade, IIRC. Old threads that might have been conforming at their time, could be boosted by the software to require the sliders now, all other things remaining equal.

For a while when I was on dialup, I hesitated about reading posts from a particular member, because he didn't use thumbnails. I even posted a reply requesting use of thumbnails, but he was unable to do so for one reason or another.

A few pictures don't upsize well, but that's probably because the uploaded image was too small to begin with. Most of the ones I've clicked magnify quite nicely.

Another wrinkle, of course, is the use of many different browsers. 'Tis a minor miracle that the forum works as well as it does.

Cheers,
Joe

[Harry72]

Big Shed, I run @ 1280x960 and there's still the occasional pic that doesn't fit... mainly embedded pix, 'cos of the box down the LH side of the screen.



Aussie, many older people use low resolutions because of failing eye-sight, not because of HW limitations. 800x600 is a good size, in that it gives a good combination of text & icon sizes while still putting a page worth of info on screen.

Sure, they could bump the resolution up and then fiddle with a whole series of tweaks for larger icons, font sizes, rah, rah, rah... but this is a quick way to lose members because it makes viewing the forums a PITA. Especially if they're not comfortable with computers in the first place.

The KISS principle applies in any good web page.

Hey Skew, if you use firefox just hold Ctrl and hit either the + or-, it'll enlarge the text and keep the pictures the same size. Or reset your computers default text size(the best way).
There is no excuse for running such low resolutions, running the native res of your monitor will give much better performance(clearer to read).

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

The big problem with external hosting is that the external host may go belly up, and the pictures are gone forever. I think that's been mentioned in the FAQs here.

Yeah, I've come across quite a few posts which are devoid of pix for just that reason.

However, I'm only referring to pix that need to be larger than the forums limits. Apart from pix of some documents (which often leave me wondering about copyright infringements) I've yet to see any pix that really "need" to be larger than they are.

(And even then, who says it all has to fit in just one photo? )

[BobL]

I'd prefer to be able to post fewer pictures, 5 per post is plenty, but to be able to post bigger pictures. So what happens is I use all close to my 10 picture limit just to be able to show some close up detail in some shots.

Also I average only 42 k per picture (1118 pics posted in total) for my mostly 800 x 600 shots, so what should happen is you should be able to post correspondingly large photos if you can post more compact pictures - shouldn't take the back room boys too long to work out an algorithm for that one.

[.RC.]

If they allowed HTML code to be used in the forum we could link to bigger pictures via a small thumbnail

<a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/?action=view&current=1.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/th_1.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" ></a>

[Honorary Bloke]

If they allowed HTML code to be used in the forum we could link to bigger pictures via a small thumbnail

Righto. And if yer aunt had a moustache, she'd be yer uncle. And if this was a computer forum, no wukkers. I made a simple (I thought) request and have gotten a large dose of input from computer-tweaking people. I'm sorry I brought it up. It suits me to a T to ignore anything I can't read easily. It was only a mild suggestion. Never mind.

[Woodwould]

Further, I don't consider myself a prolific picture poster but over the years I've UL'd 588 attachments, taking up some 20 odd MB of the servers hard-drive space. Not that much, in the grand scheme of things, but I'm only one out of... how many members?

And it's Neil, Mr UBeaut, who's carrying the cost of storing them.

If these were double the size - at the same compression - they'd take up four times the space. Again, multiply that by the number of members... [shudder]

But I guess it's always easy to talk about spending someone else's money.

Hello Skew, that's why I suggested creating subscriptions for the forum so we're not overburdening Neil's resources, and we could then enjoy decent sized pictures and upload CAD, PDF and other files of realistic proportions.

[Big Shed]

Righto. And if yer aunt had a moustache, she'd be yer uncle. And if this was a computer forum, no wukkers. I made a simple (I thought) request and have gotten a large dose of input from computer-tweaking people. I'm sorry I brought it up. It suits me to a T to ignore anything I can't read easily. It was only a mild suggestion. Never mind.

Bob, as the pollies are fond of saying "never ask a question you don't already know the answer to!'