Backward picture rules

[.RC.]

Isn't it about time the 1995 esqe 800X600 picture posting rule was updated to todays 2009 standards..

Like a limit of 1280X1200 and 175kb.. This is the only forum I visit that has such a prehistoric limit on picture size..

[RETIRED]

RC. This has been addressed numerous times, the latest being 6 weeks ago here. https://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=98081

[.RC.]

I just read nine pages of which 8 and a half was just flaming of the OP...

OK the issues seem to be..

People with small screens
People on dial up
bandwidth issues for people who use the forum's server to store their pictures

Are the first two issues in the minority in this day and age?? Statistics have told us that people on dial up are certainly in the minority in Australia..The last census in 2006 said that only 30% of internet connections were dial up...It would be considerably less today...I was part of the 30% back then, but no longer..

Screen size can be an issue, I guess I am spoilt with a 24" LCD however todays forum software only stretches the post with the picture, not the entire thread as older forum software used to do..

The issue of bandwidth is a valid one..However I store all my pictures with photobucket as such no forum bandwidth is used.. If HTML was allowed we could insert thumbnails but it seems HTML code will not work in our posts.. <a href="http://smg.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/?action=view&current=HwacheonCentreLathe_460x1000.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v606/OzRinger/th_HwacheonCentreLathe_460x1000.jpg" border="0" alt="Photobucket" ></a>

Of course you can just post a link like this http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v6...e_460x1000.jpg but I feel that takes away the experience of a good post...

[ubeaut]

Post your pics from your computer and notphoto bucket and you can have larger sizes but not directly into the post. eg
Attachment 111962 Photo downloaded from file on the computer 2.49mb, 3872px x 2592px and automatically resized to 178.34 kB, 1600px × 1071px

Sits in the post as a thumbnail and doesn't stuff it up for those who don't have the big whooptydoo 24" LCD. Photobucket on here a pain in the but, not only because the pics have people skating all over the screen to read a post, but also because the pics are often taken off that site leaving a bigger hole in the threads than having a thumbnail as above which will open up to a full size pic on a new page.

There are many really good reasons why this is preferable to photobucket pics. All have been gone into before. Not going into it again.

Either live with what we've set up here or have oversized pics deleted. Can't be more fair than that. If other forums are happy to have people running all over the screen to read posts that's their perogative. As far as this forum is concerned the thread and posts in it are more important than an oversized pic(s) that completely ruins the flow of a thread and gets lots of people really ticked off.

Neil

[.RC.]

Post your pics from your computer and notphoto bucket and you can have larger sizes but not directly into the post.
Neil

Well, well so you can...Which begs the question, why are people posting about a hard 800X600 limit when uploading pictures to this server???

[The Bleeder]

Nice photo Neil

[RETIRED]

Nice photo Neil

Been waiting for that. It is not what you think.

[Woodwould]

Well, well so you can...Which begs the question, why are people posting about a hard 800X600 limit when uploading pictures to this server???

The new system was implemented mid-'discussion' in that other thread.

[Woodwould]

Been waiting for that. It is not what you think.

Would you moderate yourself please?

[Calm]

In Neils photo Saddam Hussein seems to be carry something under his shirt

I know Ian 2 sugars in your tea

[wheelinround]

In Neils photo Saddam Hussein seems to be carry something under his shirt

I know Ian 2 sugars in your tea

No thats the sign for they are both having twins see the sway backs its the pregnancy stance

[Calm]

Not being picky ( well actually i am) but when you open the picture then click on it again (enlarges it more) i see the gentleman with the slicked back hair (operating the lathe) has what appears to be WHITE COTTON GLOVES on are these some new thing that "chaps" wear in the workshop

[AUSSIE]

[QUOTE=Calm;1004237[COLOR=blue]]In Neils photo Saddam Hussein seems to be carry something under his shirt[/COLOR]

We were looking at the photo and that came up.My mate said who is that with his fingers up.I wont say the rest
CALM-- time out for you--You best sent some Californian Poppy along as a make up to the boss present .But dont mention the Mike Jackson white gloves

[Skew ChiDAMN!!]

Photo downloaded from file on the computer 2.49mb, 3872px x 2592px and automatically resized to 178.34 kB, 1600px × 1071px

According to the attachment pop-up, there's a discrepancy.

*.JPEs are still max'd at 800x600 @100KB, *.JPEGs are at 800x? @148.8 KB and *JPGs are 1600x? @246.5 KB!!

Errmmm... aren't they all the same format, just different extensions? A surprise penalty for idiots who don't read the instructions?

I see that *.GIFs & *.BMPs are still 800x600 @100KB, but I guess that anybody who wants them larger "to see the detail" is probably viewing them on their TRS-80 & can print 'em out on their dot-matrix printer to capture them in all their glory.

[Waldo]

Been waiting for that. It is not what you think.

I think it's been sitting in the wings for threads like this.

(wonder if we should all be anticipating this pic at anytime in other threads - maybe a Friday at 12:00 when the door gets shut).