Printable View
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by HammaHed
Why "especially for this site" Is their something wrong with it.:?Quote:
Originally Posted by HammaHed
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.
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?
1000x1000 with 100K limit would be nice if it where doable.
Kevin
You can post pics as large as you want
Now try load that picture to your account.
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.Quote:
You can post pics as large as you want
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 44Ronin
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
.
Well, there's nothing wrong with that one because it doesn't stuff up the page width like the previous one did.
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 syndromeQuote:
Originally Posted by silentC
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.
I agree that embedded photos are a pain!
Is there any way that the forum can be configured to only allow thumbnails?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lignum
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.
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).
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 :)Quote:
If someone posts a stack of thumbnails loosely associated with a WWF detailed post, I often skip the entire post.
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.
There's one forum 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 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 :) )
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
I'll second that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Groggy
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:
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Groggy
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.
Thumbnails on mobile devices are about as useless as a squashed ant in between the screen cover and the screen.Quote:
- 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).
lol, that's exactly what I think and do too. I'm on a 22" widescreen and Ive got about 12 tabs going.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobL
:D I'm guessing you have more tabs on RC cars than I have on CS sites?Quote:
Originally Posted by martrix
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:Good point.Quote:
Originally Posted by arose62
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
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
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/img198/3...ceiling.th.jpg
And this annoys me sooooo much
All that for a few thumbs up:~
.
Should I have used Tasmanian Blackwood?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lignum
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 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:
https://www.woodworkforums.com/attach...1&d=1243234754
I know, I was being silly and frivolous.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
So how do you embed photos that are hosted by the forum?
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
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.
Sorry, I thought that might be the case. It's very hard to tell sometimes when your leg is being pulled :)Quote:
Originally Posted by 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?Quote:
Originally Posted by silentC
Try this Woodwould, not exactly the same but allows you to put the thumbnail anywhere into the post
Posting Pictures to Your Post
In the case of silentC's pic in post 68, the image already exists elsewhere in another thread on the forum and what he has done is copied the URL of that image and inserted the image here as well.
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).
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 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.
Ah, so that defeats that idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's Timber
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's Timber
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's Timber
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! :~
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
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: https://www.woodworkforums.com/showthread.php?t=81532 (#14):((
Cheers,
Joe
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodwould
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.