PDA

View Full Version : Posting Images and Photos



Eugenius
November 12th, 2002, 10:13 AM
I have some digital photographs that are high resolution (2200x1700). Where would be a good place to store them online, so that I can link the photos into a forum message? Is there a way to resize the photos so they fit comfortably on a computer screen? And (I know this has been discussed somewhere before, but) how do I link a photo into a message?

Edward
November 12th, 2002, 03:28 PM
Here is the procedure for posting images on Wired New York Forum.

1. *If the image you want to post is already on-line, you have to know its URL. If the image you want to post is on your computer, you have to transfer it to some server on the web. Wired New York Forum does not store your images, it just displays the images in the forum post, while the images are located on some other web-server. There are web sites that allow to store your images for free, however, some sites do not allow to view the images from another server (so called "hot linking" ).

2. Once the image is on-line and you know its URL (if you enter the URL into your browser, you would see the image), you can make the actual post. It involves typing a tag [ img] at the beginning of the image URL and [ /img] at the end (without a blank space between the square brackets, however). For example, this line

[ img]http://www.wirednewyork.com/times_square/images/times_square_25_2.jpg[ /img]

will post the following image:

http://www.wirednewyork.com/times_square/images/times_square_25_2.jpg

You can click on button "Edit" above any post with images to see and learn the code.


The images wider than 800 pixels do not display well on a forum page, so large images should be rescaled using any image editor.

Rich Battista
November 12th, 2002, 10:49 PM
nice pic Edward, still got the photography in you huh

Jessica
November 12th, 2002, 10:53 PM
Can a user use HTML coding to add pics, links, etc.?

ZippyTheChimp
June 2nd, 2003, 03:52 PM
I was able to view the image, so the url is correct.
The problem must be that the Road Runner site does not permit hot linking. The only way to view the image is to go to the site.

Go to this site. http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/photo/albums.html

It describes many photo hosting sites.

dbhstockton
June 2nd, 2003, 04:12 PM
CMANDALA,

take out the spaces. *Edward would not have been able to show you the syntax if he didn't put those spaces in... think about it...

Lightning Homer
June 3rd, 2003, 06:06 PM
It actually kills !
How come this boat could go his way ? Looks like it's higher than the bridge !

DominicanoNYC
June 6th, 2003, 05:38 PM
I'll try one form my website. I mean I never get o photo up on the forum when I want to.

http://www.beaconschool.org/~osantana/Manhattan.html/Chrysler.gif

Edward
June 12th, 2003, 10:00 PM
Dominicano, here how you do it. Click on "Edit" above my post to see the code.

http://www.beaconschool.org/~osantana/Chrysler.gif

DominicanoNYC
June 12th, 2003, 10:33 PM
Thanks.

Freedom Tower
August 14th, 2003, 10:10 PM
Just testing if I can post pics.

http://www.cnn.com/top.main.nyc.night.jpg

Qtrainat1251
August 27th, 2003, 02:04 AM
I'm doing exactly what the instructions say, putting
[ img] before the image url and [ /img] after(without the space, for show), but some of my images still arent appearing.

ZippyTheChimp
August 27th, 2003, 07:30 AM
If it's some of your images, then the problem is with the images. Is there direct linking capability on the webpage they are hosted?

Qtrainat1251
August 27th, 2003, 09:08 AM
Quote: from ZippyTheChimp on 7:30 am on Aug. 27, 2003
If it's some of your images, then the problem is with the images. Is there direct linking capability on the webpage they are hosted?

Never had a problem before, perhaps it just doesnt work well with the operating system of the board. I'm just baffled. :confused:

Freedom Tower
August 29th, 2003, 03:09 PM
I'm just having a problem finding somewhere that will host my images. Does anyone know a *good free place to have images hosted?

Freedom Tower
August 29th, 2003, 03:10 PM
http://www.beaconschool.org/~osantana/Chrysler.gif

ZippyTheChimp
August 29th, 2003, 03:30 PM
Go here:

Photo Resource Guide (http://www.andromeda.com/people/ddyer/photo/albums.html)

Freedom Tower
August 30th, 2003, 01:01 PM
Thanks Zippy, soon I will have some pictures to post.

matt3303
August 31st, 2003, 06:35 PM
Let me see if I can post pictures...

http://www.dotphoto.com/MemViewImage.asp?AID=1002360&IID=30626249

matt3303
August 31st, 2003, 06:42 PM
Hmmmm. Mabye dotphoto won't allow hotlinking. I'll get another server and try again.

YesIsaidYesIwillYes
January 19th, 2004, 01:39 PM
photo test

http://www.citidex.com/pictures/colleges/pace.gif

Jimbo Holland
January 8th, 2005, 06:59 AM
a test

http://www.bible-codes.org/images/mene-twin-towers.jpg

thirduncle
January 27th, 2005, 11:41 PM
http://www.pbase.com/mrudolph/image/39125561.jpg

Test. Feel free to delete if this dosen't work.

Edward
January 31st, 2005, 11:34 AM
The new forum software provides an additional way to post pictures - using attachments. See the thread Attachments (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=5708) in this section.

thomasjfletcher
February 1st, 2005, 09:27 AM
So I'm guessing that in the new version of the software, in order to hotlink you have to put in the --- manually? There's no button to do it automatically?

thomasjfletcher
February 1st, 2005, 09:27 AM
Also, is there a way to modify text size, etc?

Edward
February 1st, 2005, 04:23 PM
Also, is there a way to modify text size, etc?
Go to User Control Panel, then Edit Options, on the very bottom there is a box Miscellaneous Options where you should select Message Editor Interface.

There are 3 options: Basic Editor, Standard Editor and Enhanced WYSIWYG interface. Select either Standard or Enhanced.

ebrigham
August 26th, 2005, 05:55 PM
Ok I am finished with my pic test. I would delete this thread, but I don't see the button. Mods, feel free to delete. Thanks.

redhot00
August 26th, 2005, 06:05 PM
Same here. Just trying to learn how besto to insert/attach picture files

redhot00
August 26th, 2005, 06:06 PM
mine can be deleted as well please

ebrigham
August 26th, 2005, 06:23 PM
Or perhaps keep this as the resident "test" thread?

ZippyTheChimp
August 26th, 2005, 06:35 PM
An excellent idea.

ZippyTheChimp
August 26th, 2005, 06:41 PM
The moderators will periodically delete the earliest posts.

Dagrecco82
November 27th, 2005, 09:42 PM
testing....testing

Scruffy88
April 2nd, 2006, 05:47 PM
test

http://i25.photobucket.com/albums/c81/Scruffy88/trumpPLAZA_2.jpg

did it work?

Edward
April 2nd, 2006, 10:06 PM
Looks fine

alexinili
June 7th, 2006, 01:24 AM
img]http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/200742.1020.A.jpg (http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/200742.1020.A.jpg)[/img]

alexinili
June 7th, 2006, 01:27 AM
http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/200742.1020.A.jpg (http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/200742.1020.A.jpg)

Ninjahedge
June 7th, 2006, 08:59 AM
No clue... It may be the way the quoted site handles its images...

That you are not really getting that image....


It may also be the filename. All those "."s may be confusing the BBS program...

Edward
June 7th, 2006, 09:07 AM
The are [url] tags inside [img] tags, take them out.

alexinili
June 7th, 2006, 02:34 PM
Many thanks to Ninjahedge and Edward for your response.
Edward, I am quite technologically challenged; would appreciate it if you could tell me how it should appear to get the image. I don't know what urls in the img you were referring to. Thanks so much!

I am also trying to get the following image on a forum. It does not end with .jpg or whatever you say should end with in your 'how to' section, but to no avail. Have spend the entire day getting nowhere and getting quite discouraged. Would appreciate some help.

http://cgi.ebay.com/HAPPY-TOGETHER-Japan-Program-LESLIE-CHEUNG-Wong-Kar-Wai_W0QQitemZ7624737757QQcategoryZ32994QQssPageNam eZWD1VQQrdZ1QQcmdZViewItem#ebayphotohosting

THANK YOU!

NYatKNIGHT
June 7th, 2006, 04:37 PM
There is no image if you follow that link.

lofter1
June 7th, 2006, 05:50 PM
Just highlight the image on that page (roll over the image while holding down the left clicker), go to "edit" on your toolbar and click "copy" ... then "paste" here ...

http://i13.ebayimg.com/02/i/07/43/7b/03_1_b.JPG

alexinili
June 7th, 2006, 08:01 PM
<img src="http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/200742.1020.A.jpg (http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/200742.1020.A.jpg)">


Thanks to NyatKNIGHT and Lofter1. I tried the cut and paste route (to my email box and the forum I wanted it post to) but it doesnt work. Perhaps different forum set ups here and there??

Please delete my trial and error posts if it gobbles up too much of your precious space.

Thanks so much!

NYatKNIGHT
June 8th, 2006, 02:47 PM
Oh, that image.

Ninjahedge
June 9th, 2006, 02:06 PM
Well, I have tried using the typical methods of [ img ][ /img ] (remove the spaces) but there seems to be a problem with it.

Ed, I removd teh URL tags on my first attempt, but they did not seem to work, let me show you what I am talknig about:

http://www.moviegoods.com/assets/product_images/1020/200742.1020.A.jpg

Hopefully this will pop the jpeg up, but I think there is something the bulletin board program does not see as a picture since the flie is named 200742.1020.a.jpg. It may be seeing it as a "1020" and not a "jpg".

Only a guess.....

Ninjahedge
June 9th, 2006, 02:07 PM
Heh.

NOW it works!!!!!

;)

krulltime
July 26th, 2006, 12:37 PM
Why I can not link this image here?

http://www.brooklyneagle.com/inc/miniaturka.php?plik=072406130959.jpg&szerokosc=200

I have posted the above image and similar imgaes on another forum and I can see it fine. But here at wirednewyork it doesn't work. Well I know it is a wierd link and but it has work on other websites. I just don't feel like saving it in my photo service yet. I am just wondering why the link does not work here.

lofter1
July 27th, 2006, 12:00 AM
When I try to open that ^ it tells me that it is an "unknown file type" :confused:

Ninjahedge
July 27th, 2006, 09:04 AM
Um, I googled php and it seems to be a Hypertext Protocl file that is usually used on servers...

Why we would have that being downloaded from a link, I do not know.....

lofter1
August 6th, 2006, 01:32 PM
What happens when you reach your limit for images posted?

When I go to "Manage Attachments" I see on the nice bar graph that I'm reaching ~ 80 - 90% of my limit.

If I try to "clear" some space what happens to images previously posted?

And can I "manage" the way I clear that space to allow for additional image postings?

Thanks ....

TimmyG
October 3rd, 2006, 11:19 PM
http://www.nba.com/media/celtics/west_media_day435290.jpg

AmeriKenArtist
August 2nd, 2008, 11:32 AM
I just started posting photos and noticed that some persons can post large format pics and others get the thumbail which expands to a degree. I resize below the limit mentioned and get the thumbnails. When I initially posted without resizing, I was refused because of exeeding the limit. Can anyone post large format?

scumonkey
August 2nd, 2008, 11:43 AM
where are you uploading your pics at?
Have you tried photobucket?

lofter1
August 2nd, 2008, 11:46 AM
I use Flock / Photobucket to post large format photos.

There are other (better) options: If I were smarter :o I'd use the Wired New York Group on Flickr (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=10593&highlight=flickr)

MidtownGuy
August 2nd, 2008, 03:33 PM
I'm very satisfied with Flickr.

The Benniest
August 2nd, 2008, 03:38 PM
I would love to use Flickr but I don't understand the "free membership."

Is there a minimum/maximum amount of pictures you can post before you have to wait or delete some? :confused:

AmeriKenArtist
August 3rd, 2008, 10:05 PM
I think the limit is 200 photographs for the free membership.

NYatKNIGHT
August 4th, 2008, 02:59 PM
Thread was merged with an existing thread with same content.

Alonzo-ny
August 10th, 2008, 09:52 AM
With Flickr free membership you have unlimited uploading but you can only view the most recent 200 images. You older images are still around but you must upgrade to see them again.

The Benniest
August 10th, 2008, 08:24 PM
Oh, alright. Thanks for clearing that up Alonzo. :cool:

booyaa.

Alonzo-ny
August 11th, 2008, 04:23 AM
Whats with the evil avatar by the way?

The Benniest
August 11th, 2008, 01:12 PM
^^ How's that evil? :p

Alonzo-ny
August 11th, 2008, 02:52 PM
It looks like you're coming out of the shadows to attack someone.

Prometheus
June 25th, 2009, 09:40 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycsmf/3659284969/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycsmf/3660113658/

http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycsmf/3659284968/

Prometheus
June 25th, 2009, 10:00 AM
http://www.flickr.com/photos/nycsmf/3660151318/?edited=1

Prometheus
June 25th, 2009, 10:05 AM
I guess I'm an idiot. I've set up a flickr account and am copying and pasting the URL that they assign to my photos. I've tried the manual ([img]) method and by clicking on the "insert image" link above the post. However, for some reason I'm not able to get them to display. I've ensured that the "anyone can see them" option has been selected on flickr. Any suggestions?

Alonzo-ny
June 25th, 2009, 10:09 AM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3660151318_20e6f75cc6_o.png

Alonzo-ny
June 25th, 2009, 10:09 AM
I just right clicked on the image and selected copy image url which I pasted between the img /img things.

Prometheus
June 25th, 2009, 10:18 AM
Thanks...when I right click, I don't get that option. very odd. I'm on a PC, not a mac, if that makes a difference. I guess I'll devote some time to figuring this out later. thanks though.

Edward
June 25th, 2009, 10:47 AM
Prometheus, the problem is that you are using a wrong URL. You are using URL of a Flickr page, not image. As a result, html page inside IMG tags does not show anything.

To get the right URL, on Flickr page, click "All Sizes", select the right size, then below the image, in the section "2. Grab the photo's URL:" copy the URL and post it between IMG tags.

ZippyTheChimp
June 25th, 2009, 10:54 AM
I guess I'm an idiot.Just remember, you're the one that said it.

If you have Firefox on a PC:

With mouse pointer over the image, right-click.

Click on the menu item "Copy Image Location."

Paste it inside the [img] brackets.


Other browsers are similar.

Prometheus
June 25th, 2009, 10:56 AM
I told you I was an idiot! Many thanks to all for your assistance! Cheers!

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3317/3660151318_20e6f75cc6_o.png

ZippyTheChimp
June 25th, 2009, 11:39 AM
Well, you're not anymore.

nick-taylor
July 14th, 2009, 03:10 AM
Is it possible to have an exception to the rule of 800 pixels for the London thread?

MidtownGuy
January 21st, 2010, 07:08 PM
Is it possible to have an exception to the rule of 800 pixels for the London thread?


That exception has clearly been granted to the London threads, and to the Murcia thread. Though I do not know why.

If the point of posting images is to communicate and share, why make it more difficult for that to take place?

One reason for the limit is that huge pictures, posted by the dozens, make it unpleasant to click on a thread. Even with a fast connection, a hundred pictures at 2-3 MB each are going to severely slow things down.

If a member is going to take the time to post so many images, they should also have the time to address image size. Scale them down to 800 pixels!
I used to post enormous images..until I learned about the rule and contemplated the reasons for it. Now everything I post is less than 800.
We welcome your images...but we want everyone to be able to enjoy them.

Several times, moderators have requested this. Yet the London and Murcia threads continue to break forum guidelines. Do we individually decide which rules to follow? Because , if so, I would like to individually ignore the rule that I can't call someone an idiot.

Alonzo-ny
January 21st, 2010, 07:26 PM
It is my personal opinion that the image size is the not the main reason for long loading times. It is the amount of images per page that has much more effect on that. The size of a 1000 pixel image isn't much different from an 800 pixel wide image for example. As a personal rule I limit myself to 5 images per post. This puts a limit on how many images will be on any given page.

As for the fact that extra large images are too big for some screen resolutions. I think that is valid however I think 800 is too small. I use several computers and all of them would easily accommodate 1200 pixel wide images. I think a computer has to be a good few years old for it to be a problem. It is my opinion that the specified width should be 1000 with some room for manoeuvre.

I very much disagree that it is easy to resize a large number of images. That would involve saving the image, resizing then uploading and copying the link. It is discouragingly laborious.

Ultimately complaints have been rare, almost non existent in fact. I personally don't think any action is really necessary.

MidtownGuy
January 21st, 2010, 07:57 PM
The size of a 1000 pixel image isn't much different from an 800 pixel wide image for example.

Many of them are larger than 1200 pixels. 1200 is MUCH larger than 800, and when multiplied by dozens, the math (and effect) should be clear to anyone.


As a personal rule I limit myself to 5 images per post. This puts a limit on how many images will be on any given page.

I personally don't think any action is really necessary.

Your personal rule is ONE thing. The forum guidelines are another. But I understand...you enforce the rules that you personally are bothered by.


As for the fact that extra large images are too big for some screen resolutions. I think that is valid however I think 800 is too small. I use several computers and all of them would easily accommodate 1200 pixel wide images.

Too small for what??? 800 is not too small for photos posted in a thread by the dozens. If an image has to be larger, link to it. Or put it in slideshow format.


I think a computer has to be a good few years old for it to be a problem.

I have a 30 inch display with a fast G5. Still, the threads with hundreds of images, posted by the dozens per post, are prohibitively slow in loading.


It is my opinion that the specified width should be 1000 with some room for manoeuvre.

Good, but that isn't the forum guideline. Room for maneuver would be fine on images that are posted in small groups....images posted by the dozens shouldn't have much room to wiggle. Do we understand the difference?



I very much disagree that it is easy to resize a large number of images. That would involve saving the image, resizing then uploading and copying the link. It is discouragingly laborious.

Many of us do this all the time. It also has the added benefit of encouraging people to edit what they are going to include, instead of dropping a giant dump of images, many of which are similar anyway.

Somehow, I believe, if a person is zealous enough about their subject to post HUNDREDS of photos at once, they should also make time to fit them into reasonable dimensions. It goes with the territory.


Ultimately complaints have been rare, almost non existent in fact.


It's like comments to a Senator....one written complaint means there are many others who feel the same way, but they also just feel like complaining is a waste of time and most don't bother.
I'm letting you know that this is an issue which is getting out of hand in certain cases. It could be easily handled....but your reaction is not surprising.
Thanks Alonzo. Always a pleasure.

Alonzo-ny
January 21st, 2010, 08:12 PM
Many of them are larger than 1200 pixels. 1200 is MUCH larger than 800, and when multiplied by dozens, the math (and effect) should be clear to anyone.

And I advocated smaller groups of images. Isn't that clear to you?


Your personal rule is ONE thing. The forum guidelines are another. But I understand...you enforce the rules that you personally are bothered by.

Of course, I am the only one evidently not enforcing this rule. It should be obvious to you given your time on this forum that there is always room for interpretation here. Do you want me to post every instance that a rule hasn't been immediately enforced? You mentioned the rule about insults. Would you have prefered me to immediately enforce that? Like the image size rule each instance is interpreted on its merits and a reasonable judgement is made.


It's like comments to a Senator....one written complaint means there are many others who feel the same way, but they also just feel like complaining is a waste of time and most don't bother.

Not really. People here speak up when they have issues. I know. I deal with them.


It could be easily handled....but your reaction is not surprising.

Your constant misguided insinuation is tedious. Well, if that is the road you want to go down lets consider your motivation for a moment. In this (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?p=313756#post313756) thread you say this. (http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showpost.php?p=304436&postcount=117) That particular thread is much worse than London Projects for example. Almost every image at least 1000 wide and in numerous occasions too wide for my 1600 pixel wide screen. Funny that. It is only an issue in thread where you disagree with the main contributors.

MidtownGuy
January 21st, 2010, 08:33 PM
No. Those threads are the ones to which new stuff is posted continuously...almost every day...so they are naturally more on the radar.
However, the 800 pixel guideline should be followed by all, in the interest of making things equitable and simple.


Not really. People here speak up when they have issues. I know. I deal with them.I bet a good number of them are about personal insults. This is an issue not personal, but general in scope, so of course not as many people are going to personally complain. You know that.


Like the image size rule each instance is interpreted on its merits and a reasonable judgement is made.So by that logic, the threads in question should clearly merit an enforcement of the size rule, since they are most frequently, and most quantitatively, in violation.

ablarc
January 22nd, 2010, 03:25 PM
Things are fine the way they are.

BrooklynRider
January 24th, 2010, 01:47 AM
It is my personal opinion that the image size is the not the main reason for long loading times. It is the amount of images per page that has much more effect on that. The size of a 1000 pixel image isn't much different from an 800 pixel wide image for example. As a personal rule I limit myself to 5 images per post. This puts a limit on how many images will be on any given page.

As for the fact that extra large images are too big for some screen resolutions. I think that is valid however I think 800 is too small. I use several computers and all of them would easily accommodate 1200 pixel wide images. I think a computer has to be a good few years old for it to be a problem. It is my opinion that the specified width should be 1000 with some room for manoeuvre...

...Ultimately complaints have been rare, almost non existent in fact. I personally don't think any action is really necessary.

I do agree with Alonzo on these points. Threads that are comprised primarily of images load much slower. I also limit my photo posting to five images per post.

The problem is only really evident in the photo heavy threads.

MidtownGuy
January 24th, 2010, 01:38 PM
Well at least if posts with huge images are voluntarily limited to 5 photos/post on photo heavy threads, the problem can be ameliorated.:)
But to say there is no problem whatsoever, when pages take as long to load as they are taking in some circumstances, is just stepping around common sense. Thanks.

Alonzo-ny
January 24th, 2010, 01:42 PM
I think this is something you will just have to accept. Even your palm tree thread which has photos within the guidelines and even less than 5 per post in most cases still takes time to load. You have to decide whether you want photo threads at all or not. Unless we limit photos to something like 1 per post or 100 pixels wide then pages will take time to load. We all know which threads contain many images and you should be prepared for some loading time. If you don't wish to wait then don't read them.

MidtownGuy
January 24th, 2010, 01:50 PM
I never have a problem with 90% of the photo threads in loading time. My computer is VERY big and fast. That is the point you keep missing. If the problem is only happening on certain threads, those threads could benefit and be more user friendly if they try the 5 photos/post suggestion that YOU made.
Alonzo...I'm agreeing with YOUR suggestion...the controversy is over...get it? Or do you want to keep going back and forth some more for no reason? Geez. And this wasn't about me...I told you my computer is fast...it was for the benefit of everyone. Whatever though. :rolleyes:

stache
January 24th, 2010, 05:47 PM
This is really Edward's call.

BrooklynRider
January 24th, 2010, 09:02 PM
I also agree with Stache.

The moderators can online keep us within the guidelines. Edward might want to address this or post a more prominent reminder. MidtownGuy, you can PM Edward to see if he might consider it.

I think we'll all agree that there are some more proficient with photo sizing and posting. I know that I used to post thumbnails. I resorted back to posting full photos, because it is easier to review than clicking on every thumbnail. I'm not sure if it is laziness of efficieny?:confused:

stache
January 25th, 2010, 12:01 AM
What bothers me, when there's a lot of photos, is I try to read a post below the photos and the thread keeps jumping around because all the photos are loading. :(

scumonkey
January 25th, 2010, 01:18 AM
I can't tell you how many times that's happened to me...
Unfortunately I usually end up saying 'eff it and skip to the next topic.

Alonzo-ny
January 25th, 2010, 05:20 AM
I think we'll all agree that there are some more proficient with photo sizing and posting. I know that I used to post thumbnails. I resorted back to posting full photos, because it is easier to review than clicking on every thumbnail. I'm not sure if it is laziness of efficieny?:confused:

The thumbnail method is good for small updates. ie Greenwichboy. But would be horrible for Nick's great updates in London projects. I don't think even I would have the patience to click on each one. I have also seen thumbnails which link to imageshack (pop up central).


What bothers me, when there's a lot of photos, is I try to read a post below the photos and the thread keeps jumping around because all the photos are loading. :(

Best way to counter this is to click the red X on your browser to stop the page loading.

ZippyTheChimp
January 25th, 2010, 11:49 AM
I have also seen thumbnails which link to imageshack (pop up central).Don't you have a pop-up blocker?

Alonzo-ny
January 25th, 2010, 12:45 PM
I do. However for some reason imageshack still seems to get through. There is also the fact that when you are linked to the imageshack page the image isn't full size so you ultimately have to click twice per image.

Merry
January 26th, 2010, 12:30 AM
^ Yes, despite a popup blocker I have had the same issue with ImageShack.

It would be nice if it were possible to open only the latest post in a thread sometimes and not the whole last page - or have I missed something?

I've occasionally used the stop loading button and then opened the last post manually to get around long load time and jumpy behaviour (yes, very annoying).

Alonzo-ny
January 26th, 2010, 05:09 AM
Another thing I will do while waiting is open a new tab and read some threads that I know won't have alot of images in to pass the time.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 12:51 PM
Threads that are comprised primarily of images load much slower. I also limit my photo posting to five images per post.
What bothers me, when there's a lot of photos, is I try to read a post below the photos and the thread keeps jumping around because all the photos are loading.
I can't tell you how many times that's happened to me...
Unfortunately I usually end up saying 'eff it and skip to the next topic.
I've occasionally used the stop loading button and then opened the last post manually to get around long load time and jumpy behaviour (yes, very annoying).well, well, well....imagine that...there are others (regular members) who also find it troublesome.
It is annoying.

but

alonzo:
If you don't wish to wait then don't read them.
^instead of being responsive or the least bit helpful, we could just start alienating folks instead.:rolleyes:

Alonzo-ny
January 26th, 2010, 01:09 PM
I have suggested the 5 per post idea several times and suggested other techniques to deal with other members problems. What have you contributed other than complaining that some people post images that are bigger than 800 pixels? Do you actually have any solutions?

If you just want another pissing contest PM me instead of wasting everyone's time.


Or do you want to keep going back and forth some more for no reason?

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 01:15 PM
I reject the tone and the insinuation of the last statement. A "pissing match" to you is just a debate you don't like. :rolleyes: The "pissing matches " YOU engage in are another thing altogether, of course.

My solution is for you, a moderator, to step in on those threads where a problem is most noticeable and enforce the guidelines, not just tell people to go elsewhere or get an attitude.

Alonzo-ny
January 26th, 2010, 01:22 PM
There is a discussion happening in this thread right now which you are not contributing to. If you want to discuss me like it seems you are intent on doing then PM me. Stop wasting everyones time.

We are trying to find a solution to the problem. I could enforce the 800 pixel rule but it would be pointless because:

1) Reducing images from, say, 1000 pixels in a photo heavy thread will not significantly speed up loading. At least not enough to justify the work.

2) The amount of images means enforcement would ultimately mean whole posts would simply be deleted. I doubt any mods would be happy personally editing 10/20/40 image links.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 01:33 PM
easy...enforcement of forum guidelines should happen from this point forward. No one is suggesting threads be deleted...but allowing an unideal situation to go on and on is not the right approach.



There is a discussion happening in this thread right now which you are not contributing to.

Don't be ridiculous. A contribution is still a contribution, regardless of being negative or positive, and whether or not YOU see it as such. Even a complaint is a "contribution", you know. Next time you say something I don't agree with, I'll just say you aren't "contributing" What a crock of bull.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 01:35 PM
1) Reducing images from, say, 1000 pixels in a photo heavy thread will not significantly speed up loading. At least not enough to justify the work.How about, say, 1200 to 800? Multiplied by 100 images?
According to mathematics, yes it will. The difference grows when you multiply.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 01:37 PM
At least not enough to justify the work.

If someone has the time to post 100 photos at a time, they should have the time to resize. It goes with the territory.

Alonzo-ny
January 26th, 2010, 02:21 PM
easy...enforcement of forum guidelines should happen from this point forward. No one is suggesting threads be deleted...but allowing an unideal situation to go on and on is not the right approach.

This seems to assume that the moderators were not aware of the problem. We have been. There are good reasons why it isn't enforced on the photo heavy threads. It is too laborious, and the alternative to individually changing image links is deleting entire posts. Which obviously no mod has seen that as an acceptable solution. Which it is not.

The rule is enforced on images that are solitary. It is only in the image heavy threads that it is not.



Don't be ridiculous. A contribution is still a contribution, regardless of being negative or positive, and whether or not YOU see it as such. Even a complaint is a "contribution", you know. Next time you say something I don't agree with, I'll just say you aren't "contributing" What a crock of bull.

I'm referring to your obsession with making the subject me instead of the actual image problem.


How about, say, 1200 to 800? Multiplied by 100 images?
According to mathematics, yes it will. The difference grows when you multiply.

I did some quick research. I checked every image on one page of the Murcia, London projects and Empire city threads. Of all the images larger than 800 the vast majority were only 1000 wide. Yes, this equates to the page only taking 80% of the time to load but is that enough to justify a mod spending ages changing the links or deleting an entire page? I don't think so.


If someone has the time to post 100 photos at a time, they should have the time to resize. It goes with the territory.

My quote was referring to mods having to change all the links. If someone is preparing the images at home then, yes, it should be easy to resize them. However, and I am not as familiar with other threads, in London projects I know that the majority of images are linked from other forums and websites. Therefore because the posters are not personally preparing the images it would very discouraging to have them have to resize them. It is my opinion this would be so discouraging that these posters would simply cease posting. All they have to do at the moment is copy and paste a link.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 03:49 PM
Yes, this equates to the page only taking 80% of the time to load but is that enough to justify a mod spending ages changing the links or deleting an entire page? I don't think so.


No one is suggesting that a moderator go in and change the images on behalf of a poster. Clearly that is nuts and I never suggested such a thing. My position is quite reasonable and measured...what is being suggested is that a moderator might say on the extremely image-heavy threads something like :

"please size future images no larger than the forum guideline of 800 pixels if photos are to be posted in great big giant batches."

or at the very least:

"if you are posting dozens or hundreds of photos in one giant dump, limit 5 photos per post (the solution you and others suggested)."

Very simple.

Alonzo-ny
January 26th, 2010, 03:52 PM
"please size future images no larger than the forum guideline of 800 pixels if photos are to be posted in great big giant batches."

No, this is pointless, as I have said ad nauseum,


"if you are posting dozens or hundreds of photos in one giant dump, limit 5 photos per post (the solution you and others suggested)."

Very simple.

Yes, this is action we can take and we all seem in agreement about it. It will make a difference.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 03:54 PM
It is my opinion this would be so discouraging that these posters would simply cease posting.

Or maybe they would just be more selective instead of control-c-v-ing everything but the kitchen sink. Sometimes less is more;).

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 04:00 PM
"please size future images no larger than the forum guideline of 800 pixels if photos are to be posted in great big giant batches."
No, this is pointless,

It is not pointless. It is perfectly logical, and mathematical...if one is going to post, say, 50 images, make each one somewhat smaller so that the overall effect of slowing down that entire page is somewhat mitigated.

Alonzo-ny
January 26th, 2010, 04:26 PM
It is infinitely simpler to limit the images per post.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 04:33 PM
Either way. The effect is the same: making threads that everyone can see, and a photo viewing experience more accessible and less annoying.

All it will take is a brief note from a moderator such as yourself, advising either practice, on the threads that seem to be slowest in loading.
Very simple. No "pissing matches" necessary, no need for a protracted debate here.

lofter1
January 26th, 2010, 06:22 PM
Agreed ^

Delete the oversized images with a remark stating that forum users should comply with the WNY 800 max rule (unless that rule has been changed since I joined -- I just did a search for image posting rules and I couldn't find the rule about size or number of images in a post).

People will learn quite quickly what is allowable and what is not.

The other bothersome situation with extra-large images is that such a post allows the text to stream across the full width of the image window.

stache
January 26th, 2010, 08:57 PM
Posting over 800 pixels is a ten point infraction.

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 09:20 PM
Checking the latest page on the Manchester thread, I notice it is now blessed with several pictures of a highway that are over 1500 x 938 pixels.

http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3149/2872672794_6ec3a0dfa4_o.jpg

Somehow I doubt this photo needs to be this gargantuan.:cool:

lofter1
January 26th, 2010, 09:42 PM
Posting over 800 pixels is a ten point infraction.

Is there a link to that rule?

And: Would this mean that if someone posted 10 photos within one post that were all over 800 px wide that the poster would then receive 100 infraction points?

MidtownGuy
January 26th, 2010, 10:13 PM
I think rather than infractions, what is needed is some common sense...certain threads are taking way too long, and acting too jumpy while loading, so people should be conscious of others trying to view them.

When certain posters keep posting HUGE sizes, a simple reminder should be enough to get things back on track. Sort of like insults...an infraction is not necessary every single time...only in certain cases and when the behavior is repeated even after being advised of policy.

Codex
January 27th, 2010, 01:05 AM
Now that I realise you have such a policy, I shall be posting pics on other sites rather than this one. I shall merely reserve this site for the odd comment as I really do not wish to be embroiled in some petty dispute related to the rules and regulations of the site (life is too short) especially when there are plenty of other websites which are free of such rules. Indeed I would not have posted pics in the first place if I had known such strict rules existed and apologise for breaking any news.

I have now posted my last pic on this site, so I will not be breaking any further rules in relation to pics. :) ;)

lofter1
January 27th, 2010, 01:35 AM
The sole "rule" about size of pics seems to be HERE (http://www.wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3709) (Post 2).

stache
January 27th, 2010, 03:43 AM
What are attachments? You can use the attachment feature of this forum, which gives you the ability to attach files of certain types to your posts. This could be an image, a text document, a zip file etc. There is a limit of 150 Kbytes file size limit for pictures and the largest picture dimension cannot exceed 800 pixels.
To attach a file to a new post, simply click the [Browse] button at the bottom of the post composition page, and locate the file that you want to attach from your local hard drive. There is a limit of 10 files per post. There is also a limit of 10 Mb for a total size of all attachments for each user (25 Mb for Senior Members).
Only certain types of files may be attached: these are the valid file extensions for files to be attached to this forum: .
After posting, the pictures will show up as thumbnails at the bottom of your message.

************************************************** ********************************************

And here I am quoting myself, but here is the point system explained -

Minor violation of forum rules of conduct - infraction - 10 points. duration - 14 days
************************************************** *********************
Inappropriate language - infraction - 30 points. duration - 14 days
************************************************** *********************
Violation of forum rules of conduct - infraction - 50 points. duration - one month
************************************************** *********************
Spam - infraction - 100 points. duration - forever
************************************************** *********************
Insulting other members - infraction - 100 points. duration - 7 days

Merry
January 27th, 2010, 05:37 AM
Just curious: in Posts 2 and 9, Edward mentions an "Edit" button above posts containing images. I can't see one :confused:.

On other forums, which I think are also powered by vBulletin, I've seen images posted that are large with a warning bar above the photo which says:

This image has been resized. Click this bar to view the full image. The original image is sized nnnnxnnnn.

Is this functionality available here? And if so, does the system do this automatically or does it require a moderator/administrator to do it manually?

It would seem to be the perfect solution if it's available and automatic.


I may well be mistaken, but I could have sworn there was a post somewhere that I read (I think by Zippy) that stated the maximum width allowable is 1000px, which I've been following for large images :o :confused:.

Alonzo-ny
January 27th, 2010, 05:57 AM
As you can see here (http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=118048) there is that function. I think that would be the easiest option. Automatic resize and limit to 5 images.

Though at this rate we will have no posters left to impliment it.

Merry
January 27th, 2010, 08:28 AM
Ah, but :(:

II. What does it not do
- It does not do server side resizing of images. Everything is done clientside
- It does not prevent long loading times. The images have to be downloaded completely by the client before the script can resize them.

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2010, 08:48 AM
I may well be mistaken, but I could have sworn there was a post somewhere that I read (I think by Zippy) that stated the maximum width allowable is 1000px, which I've been following for large images :o :confused:.The stated rule, images no wider than 800 pixels, has been in Forum Rules of Conduct > Posting Guidelines for years.

I do remember speaking about a 1000 pix width somewhere, but it's my own guideline. That width approximately fits the forum layout, and 1024 pix is a popular web image size. What we're trying to avoid is this. Over 3900 pix wide; it distorts the thread layout.

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2010, 08:53 AM
Posting over 800 pixels is a ten point infraction.


Is there a link to that rule?

And: Would this mean that if someone posted 10 photos within one post that were all over 800 px wide that the poster would then receive 100 infraction points?

I've never given an infraction for a post formatting error. It's resolved via PM. Infractions come if the PM is ignored.

Merry
January 27th, 2010, 09:08 AM
I'm sorry, Zippy, my bad. I just seem to recall that your post was a clarification of the forum guidelines and, since you're a mod, that 1000 was the rule.

ZippyTheChimp
January 27th, 2010, 12:28 PM
It would be nice if it were possible to open only the latest post in a thread sometimes and not the whole last page - or have I missed something?That's a great idea, but unfortunately, you get taken to the last page.

I don't mind downloading all the images, but I hate to have to do it again just to see a "Nice pix" reply. Especially after a length of time, when the tempy files are removed from your computer cache.

Sometimes, if you keep hitting the "page end" key, you can catch the last post and then hit the stop button on your browser.

lofter1
January 27th, 2010, 01:16 PM
When I come to WNY for a look at "New Posts" I will sometimes -- especially in the case of those threads that have a history of lots of photos -- open that 1st "New Posts" thread in a separate window and let it load without opening that window, and meanwhile open a 2nd "New Posts" thread and check that out. By the time the 2nd one has been read the 1st is ready for viewing -- no time wasted waiting for uploads.

stache
January 27th, 2010, 03:07 PM
Well yeah but you're smart -

Alonzo-ny
January 27th, 2010, 03:13 PM
Another thing I will do while waiting is open a new tab and read some threads that I know won't have alot of images in to pass the time.

He is just stealing my ideas.

lofter1
January 27th, 2010, 03:52 PM
Learning from those smarter than myself ;)

Dr.T
January 27th, 2010, 06:34 PM
I would like to ask a question: how many images are here?

I copy my post#277 in Murcia'sThread: http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18609&page=19





Foundation DoCoMoMo Ibérico
Documentation and Conservation of the Modern Movement in Spain and Portugal



Database Murcia




http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/1760/doc1zeb.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc1zeb.jpg)http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4818/doc2s.jpg (http://img25.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc2s.jpg)http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7595/doc3w.jpg (http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc3w.jpg)http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/3232/doc4.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc4.jpg)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/8416/doc5l.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc5l.jpg)http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/1230/doc6w.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc6w.jpg)http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7126/doc7.jpg (http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc7.jpg)http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/4743/doc8.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc8.jpg)
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/6243/doc9c.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc9c.jpg)http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/9942/doc10.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc10.jpg)http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/9648/doc11.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc11.jpg)http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/7448/doc12.jpg (http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc12.jpg)http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/930/doc13.jpg (http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc13.jpg)http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/2753/doc14.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc14.jpg)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/5030/doc15t.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc15t.jpg)http://img193.imageshack.us/img193/429/doc16.jpg (http://img193.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc16.jpg)
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4447/doc17.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc17.jpg) http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/2275/doc18.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc18.jpg)http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5855/doc19.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc19.jpg)http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/2641/doc20q.jpg (http://img38.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc20q.jpg)http://img44.imageshack.us/img44/4176/doc21.jpg (http://img44.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc21.jpg)http://img200.imageshack.us/img200/9770/doc34.jpg (http://img200.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc34.jpg]) http://img15.imageshack.us/img15/4900/doc22.jpg (http://img15.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc22.jpg)http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5438/doc23.jpg (http://img32.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc23.jpg)http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/2772/doc24.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc24.jpg)
http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4792/doc25.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc25.jpg)http://img197.imageshack.us/img197/4571/doc26.jpg (http://img197.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc26.jpg)http://img198.imageshack.us/img198/7177/doc33.jpg (http://img198.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc33.jpg])http://img31.imageshack.us/img31/634/doc27.jpg (http://img31.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc27.jpg)http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/1915/doc28.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc28.jpg)http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/3671/doc29.jpg (http://img189.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc29.jpg)http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/603/doc30.jpg (http://img8.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc30.jpg)http://img132.imageshack.us/img132/8546/doc31.jpg (http://img132.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc31.jpg)http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/7429/doc32.jpg (http://img40.imageshack.us/my.php?image=doc32.jpg)



http://www.docomomoiberico.com/ (http://www.docomomoiberico.com/)




* * * * * * * *



There are 33 images in 4 lines. To me: 1 line is 1 image. I think new rule of posting images (5 per post) isn't correct. Would be better: ilimited number of images but only 5 lines of images, because I upload many times images in battery inside of only 1 line. If you allow this modification of the new rule, then I can upload all images in slide system in the end of the post by link and everybody can see images in original size.

stache
January 27th, 2010, 06:39 PM
The topic is more about large size images.

Alonzo-ny
January 27th, 2010, 06:47 PM
There are 33 images in 4 lines. To me: 1 line is 1 image. I think new rule of posting images (5 per post) isn't correct. Would be better: ilimited number of images but only 5 lines of images, because I upload many times images in battery inside of only 1 line. If you allow this modification of the new rule, then I can upload all images in slide system in the end of the post by link and everybody can see images in original size.

The 5 per post would only apply if the images were full size. If you post thumbnails as above then posting 5 lines would be perfect.

Dr.T
January 27th, 2010, 06:59 PM
The topic is more about large size images.

Yes, I know Stache. I'm trying to explain how I'm going to do from now on things when I return to writing: to reduce all images to 5 lines within the post and then add a slide. After the summer I've resized all my images to 1024x725 max with Photobucket, because I had many problems with page 22nd of Murcia's Thread.


http://wirednewyork.com/forum/showthread.php?t=18609&page=21

Dr.T
January 27th, 2010, 07:02 PM
The 5 per post would only apply if the images were full size. If you post thumbnails as above then posting 5 lines would be perfect.

Of course, then there isn't any problem to me with the new rule.

See you Alonzo. :)

Ninjahedge
February 2nd, 2010, 11:13 AM
Thumbnails rule.

Either a link or easy thumbs for these.

Also, any others given at "full" size should be limited. No posting 6 posts with 5 in each unless it was requested in the first place.

We just have to keep it to the point where you can still see what is being offered, and easily access anything that is on there.

One other suggestion would be in cases like DT's post, that a way to limit the width of the posts should be enacted to prevent the need for side scrolling.

I THINK that only the post that is wide is subject to this (that the others narrow back down to browser width) but I am unsure.

Side question:

Is there a possible way to set up an account with something like Picasa to share pic space on the web here? It might make things easier if we had a shared album that individuals could add to, but mods could easily edit WITHOUT having to take up WNY serverspace....


Only downside would be filtering. For some reason "Sonic Wall" or whatever it is called, considers Photobucket to somehow be a media streamer not appropriate for work... (so some of the pic threads are all a bunch of slow, blocked red X's... :(...)

Anyway, those are my suggestions. Take or leave 'em, but please don't spit on them! ;)

mariab
September 17th, 2013, 05:13 PM
I posted some images in the New Brunswick thread that were not hi-res, and they have disappeared. They show up as attachment links which lead to nothing. Also the Sandy thread, but not all of those have disappeared. I don't use the managing attachments option, I just upload them directly from my pictures program as I've always done.

ZippyTheChimp
September 17th, 2013, 06:17 PM
Have you reached the total file limit?

I'm not sure what the limit is. Check your profile and contact Edward.

lofter1
September 18th, 2013, 01:40 AM
I reached my limit again (for the 4th+ time) about one month ago. A member's limit can be increased (if you ask nice). I haven't had the time or inclination to make the request.

mariab
September 18th, 2013, 02:56 PM
Thanks Lofter. According to my profile, that long green line only has a small amount of red, and it also says:


Attachment StatisticsYou are currently using 6.73 MB to store 115 uploaded attachments.Not sure what's up. I sent a PM to Edward so I'll wait & see before posting again.

JCMAN320
October 30th, 2013, 03:26 AM
Guys how to link photos from Flickr? Im trying to upload photos in the JC thred and I keep getting the x even though i out [ img] [ /img] around the link obviously without the spaces. Any help?

UPDATE:Never mind figured it out :)

IrishInNYC
March 26th, 2014, 03:05 PM
I'm having trouble uploading pictures from my computer. They are the right format (jpg, png) and under the 2MB limit. When I open the "insert image" dialog box I can select the image and hit upload...it quickly runs the progress bar and then displays the small red icon to the right (as it would if the file were oversized). Any ideas?

stache
March 26th, 2014, 05:27 PM
I've been having the same problem with my Mac. I tried to change my avatar and even that didn't work. :(

Ninjahedge
March 29th, 2014, 02:20 AM
Just tried to upload an image... and kept getting " ! " on the upload box with a confusing message that did not all fit on the screen.

I can't seem to find my uploaded images here... any help would be appreciated!

Merry
March 29th, 2014, 09:32 AM
I tried uploading a photo today and, although the progress bar indicated 100%, nothing happened after that and I had to close the dialogue box manually.

IrishInNYC
March 31st, 2014, 08:03 AM
I tried uploading a photo today and, although the progress bar indicated 100%, nothing happened after that and I had to close the dialogue box manually.

Still the same issue here.

Edward
April 2nd, 2014, 10:51 AM
I see the problem. Trying to have this fixed.

stache
April 2nd, 2014, 01:26 PM
Thank you Edward!

Edward
April 8th, 2014, 04:30 PM
This is fixed now. Attaching images should be working as usual. Let me know if you still get errors.

stache
April 8th, 2014, 04:46 PM
17815

Edward
April 8th, 2014, 04:54 PM
Limit raised.

I reached my limit again (for the 4th+ time) about one month ago. A member's limit can be increased (if you ask nice). I haven't had the time or inclination to make the request.

lofter1
April 8th, 2014, 09:06 PM
Bless You! Three Cheers for Edward!!!

mariab
April 19th, 2014, 04:02 PM
All good now, thanks Edward!