New 150Kb now 300 KB Image Size Limit for Uploading

[raid]

I used to upload images with smaller sizes (around 100Kb) for critique sessions, but several RFF members askedme touplaod larger sized images so that they could see more details. Imagine mu surprise today when I tried to upload an image with size 625Kband it was rejected. There is now a reduction in allowable image size for uploading within a thread from 1000Kb to 1/8 of that size to 150Kb. I used to think that such a size was much too small and that only "smaller" [in membership] websites had to limit their members to around 100Kb images (such as nelsonfoto.com), but it seems that our RFF website also is going that route with a 150Kb limit. I don't feel good about this change. At least, allow a 400Kb~500Kb limit.


Maybe Jorge can give us the reasons to go that route suddenly.

Raid

 

[back alley]

there is already a thread about this, i think frank started it.

and it is best to ask jorge directly (as i already stated to you) as he does not read all the threads.

and it would be best to put this sort of thread in the feedback section if you seek info about the site itself.

joe

 

[raid]

there is already a thread about this, i think frank tarted it.

and it is best to ask jorge directly (as i already stated to you) as he does not read all the threads.

and it would be best to put this sort of thread in the feedback section if you seek info about the site itself.

joe

Joe,

I searched for a feedback section and did not find one. Of course, such a section wouldbe best suited here.

I sent Jorge a pm on another issue several days ago and I have not received back a response. I don't mind sending him another pm on this issue, but he may be too busy to respond. The reason for my posting was also to get feedback from RFF members. I want to know if a small image rule is actually OK or not. Jorge's response alone would not give me that feedback.


Since Frank already has started a thread on this issue, it is also good that I go there to read what is being discussed.

Raid

 

[boilerdoc2]

Not sure that big files are needed for a website picture. There has to be some sort of limit to prevent crashes. If you need to upload the bigger files an upgrade in membership to Premium allows that.
Steve

 

[raid]

Steve: I am a paying member but I still do not see any larger file limit.

Raid

 

[Keith]

Perhaps it's a quirk with the system Raid ... I went to upload a 250 k file the other day and it was rejected and I'm also a paid member. I would have thought that if the limit had been changed suddenly Jorge would have notified us? 😕

 

[raid]

Keith,
I feel that a change was made due to changes in how this website is being managed or because of space requirements regardless of the managing directions. Still, it would have been nice to be notified here that such a change was made.

Raid

 

[RayPA]

Yeah, I just checked and the attachment size is 150kb, now. 😡 That's not a good change. I'm not certain what the previous limit was, but I'm sure I would have bumped into it if it was 150kb! Is there an inline image posting limit?

Is this the first of the changes/enhancements for RangefinderQuest? 😉

.

 

[GeroV]

I thought the limit, at least for paying members, was 250k, at least it was last week when I uploaded a couple of images, and that seems a decent size, although sometimes it would be nice to look at detail in a larger image. I would link to my pbase gallery in that case.

 

[lZr]

Also the upload section is now limited to 3 files at most

 

[ampguy]

I don't use the gallery here, even the previous larger file size limit was imposing for me.

However, for the critiques Ray, I think you'll need to modify the rules to allow for linked higher res images.

Smugmug is a good photo hosting site with unlimited photos, and up to 8Mb/48Mp at $40/yr. (basic) with 6Gb bw, and uses distributed storage (Amazon's S3 service) so your data is on RAID 5 in multiple states, though I would still highly recommend you keep local multiple copies of all your work.

 

[RayPA]

...

However, for the critiques Ray, I think you'll need to modify the rules to allow for linked higher res images.

...

We may have to start using links to the Gallery instead of attachments . Is it just my personal settings or is the the IMG inline code option gone (set to off) too?


.

 

[back alley]

i posted a question to the powers that be about the image size change.

video at 11!
🙂

 

[ampguy]

testing inline img

testing inline img

IMG testing:

below wrapped in [URL="http://www.tedm.com/jfood/teabox.JPG"]http://www.tedm.com/jfood/teabox.JPG

below wrapped in

appears IMG's are off, but links still work, so photos can be linked on personal sites, flickr, facebook, google/picasa webshare, etc.

I'd expect Stephen or Jorge to update us soon, I'm sure they're busy now transitioning the thing. Maybe there is some "premium+" level that makes sense to keep some storage within RFF, or Smugmug has an API...

I'd pay a few bucks extra to keep or get more storage here, and that's just in photo attachments. The 150kb, if it stays, means I'd have to open and modify every image from my digicam, while the previous size settings let me set my digicam on a low res for sale items, etc., and quickly post as is here.

Also, could potentially add value of the site, having unique content stored at RFF.

QUOTE=RayPA]We may have to start using links to the Gallery instead of attachments . Is it just my personal settings or is the the IMG inline code option gone (set to off) too?


.[/QUOTE]

 

[back alley]

at the bottom of each page, in the 'posting rules' box you can see what is on or off.
img is not 'on' in all sections.
it is 'off' in this section.

joe

 

[MP Guy]

The paid members get the big file upload in the gallery. I reduced the file upload size for attachments because of the number of files being saved. If it becomes too much of a pain, I will increase it some.

 

[ampguy]

Thanks Jorge

Thanks Jorge

Would this be possible - keep new small file size limit in postings if you have to, but allow users to upload big files, then just squeeze them down like that auction site, and some of the social networking sites, even flickr to a ridiculously small but still viewable image?

That way I don't have to open images in an editor, shrink and upload, I can just upload, and let the forum sw reduce to whatever? I think even my kids lowest rez digicam still creates ~200kb files.

The paid members get the big file upload in the gallery. I reduced the file upload size for attachments because of the number of files being saved. If it becomes too much of a pain, I will increase it some.

 

[raid]

Jorge: An increase in file size is needed for critique sessions so that images can be seen better. Not many images are uploaded in such sessions, as you know. Thanks.

Raid

 

[back alley]

can someone explain this to me...

my understanding is that maximum internet resolution is at 72dpi.
if so, how will a larger file size help for things like photo critiques or lens evals? is there actually more info getting onto the screen?
sorry if this is basic but i don't get it.

many thanks for your patience.
joe

 

[Kim Coxon]

72dpi is a "density", it has little to do with the file size. If you download a 150Kb file at 72dpi and open it, you would see it at a certain size on the screen. Using any picture viewer, you could look at it at 144dpi but it would be half the size. Another way to look at it, is that if you open a 500kb file, it might not fir on the screen. However, most browser automaticaaly resize the frame to fit your monitor but at the same time the dpi or density increases giving better resolution and detail.

Kim

can someone explain this to me...

my understanding is that maximum internet resolution is at 72dpi.
if so, how will a larger file size help for things like photo critiques or lens evals? is there actually more info getting onto the screen?
sorry if this is basic but i don't get it.

many thanks for your patience.
joe