The way this site handles pictures could really be improved.

[silentC]

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

[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.

[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

x1000

[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-BR...-avoids-mostl/

To the high resolution image it's self.

http://www.instructables.com/files/o...WMFHY0H93A.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.

Sorry - I missed the emoticon.

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.

Does Y + Z > X ?

I think so.


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