images in posts, please read

Making them a pita huh..

hmm... what do we have to do to make some of the other ones hummus so that we got something to dip those pitas into ? :D

Dave
 
I agree with Mark and Jon. My personal standard is the one I learned from uploaded images at Photo.net: 511 pixels in the long side. It'll give you a very nice, small but clear image.

Raid, the comand on the upper frame of the quick post window marked with a globe and a chain link is the one that allows you link an image from another website into the thread. You can either enter the URL in the window after clickin on the "world-link", or type a command with
and voila, your image is in the thread.

How did you like'em apples? ;)
 
Last edited:
May I suggest that for those posting more than ONE photo, please post the rest as attachments.

All too often, I've been waiting for everyone's photos to upload and it is simply too tedious. If you are understandably proud of your photos, embed the first one, but attach the rest and let your audience select which remaining ones they wish or don't wish to view.
 
SolaresLarrave said:
Raid, the comand on the upper frame of the quick post window marked with a globe and a chain link is the one that allows you link an image from another website into the thread. You can either enter the URL in the window after clickin on the "world-link", or type a command with
and voila, your image is in the thread.

How did you like'em apples? ;)
Click to expand...
Well (or maybe not so well), this inherently requires one's photos to be sourced from some internet website, doesn't it. Does everyone have their photos stored online? To link one in a thread, you'd have to go to that other site, somehow find the appropriae picture and insert its URL within the img tags.

I store my photos on my hard drive, so there's no URL to specify... :(
 
ferider said:
Anyone knows if there is a smart way to do scaling of an image ref in html ? Let's say the original is 1000x800 how can I get it down in an IMG type
link to 700x... without rescaling the picture ?

Thanks,

Roland.
Click to expand...


hey roland. you actually don't want to do this from a quality standpoint. the built-in engines that render the html code are not nearly as good as resizing done in a graphics program, and saving another version. images sized this way look dreadful!
 
Jon Claremont said:
A lot of people can see only 780px on a 'standard 17" screen', and that includes the chrome (scroll bars and so on) so way less is a considerate way to go. Yep, I can see way more than 780px and so can many of us, but we need to design for everybody's screen and take account of everybody's connection speed.

Personally I go for 480px wide anywhere on the web. If people want bigger than that they can get new glasses.

I have stopped looking in RFF W/NW because of the over-large images and over-long download times.
Click to expand...

I'm all for finding a size for in-thread images that works for everyone as NOTHING ruins a W/NW thread more than thumbnails and links to images.
 
I usually post my images as links to click on (and I often wonder whether people look at them, as opposed to those that are posted as embedded images).

I do sometimes get impatient with the big embedded images for two reasons. First, they take a long time to load. Second, they cause the entire page's right margin to expand to the width of the widest photo on that page of the thread. So you have to scroll back and forth to read every message. Which is indeed a PITA (unfortunately, without hummus or baba ganoujh).

On other sites where I post, 800 pixels in the horizontal dimension works for me, and 650 in the vertical. This assumes not much horizontal overhead, and a screen of 1024x768. I suspect limiting to 650 in either dimension would work here, even for those with 800x600 screens. If you need a bigger enlargement to make your statement, post a link.

Hint: The freeware file viewer/editor Irfanview has a batch resizer that allows you to specify "no bigger than xxx pixels" in each dimension (it's a little cryptic, but is explained in the help file). This facility is a quick and easy way to resize a bunch of larger files for the Web quickly.

--Peter
 
Peter Klein said:
I usually post my images as links to click on (and I often wonder whether people look at them, as opposed to those that are posted as embedded images).
--Peter
Click to expand...

I'd say I click on maybe 5% of thumbnails. Probably less. I'm sure I miss a lot of great photos but the thumbnail/link thing just doesn't cut it for me in threads that are focused on images.

Anyone who browses the photo.net w/nw threads may know what I mean..imagine having to click on thumbnails to see the images instead of just scrolling down the list of images. Yuck.
 
you're a funny guy rich...it's just one more click and there you have a very nice pic.

none the less, what say we (compromise) & try 700 on the long side for now and see what the pics look like and if the membership can live with that.

folks?

joe
 
Rich Silfver said:
I'd say I click on maybe 5% of thumbnails. Probably less. I'm sure I miss a lot of great photos but the thumbnail/link thing just doesn't cut it for me in threads that are focused on images.

Anyone who browses the photo.net w/nw threads may know what I mean..imagine having to click on thumbnails to see the images instead of just scrolling down the list of images. Yuck.
Click to expand...

Rich
Not everybody as Dougg points out, has their images stored online and is therefore able to post as an embedded image - so there is no choice but to post as an attachment which then needs to be opened. Most of mine are also on my hard drive so I make sure I look at other's thumbnails and accept this as part of the way to view the W/NW threads.
Setting a standard size like 600 pixels on the longest edge would seem a good compromise for those who can post images directly in the thread.
 
back alley said:
none the less, what say we (compromise) & try 700 on the long side for now and see what the pics look like and if the membership can live with that.

folks?

joe
Click to expand...
Fine with me, Joe. I've been making mine 700 on the horizontal edge and it doesn't seem to cause any problems when I link them inline.

Gene
 
back alley said:
you're a funny guy rich...it's just one more click and there you have a very nice pic.
Click to expand...

a) I'm lazy,
b) I like scrolling through images (not thumbnails), and
c) I'm funny.

One of these days I will set up a charity aimed at providing dial-up users with much needed assistance to join the 21st century :)
 
Simon Larby said:
Rich
Not everybody as Dougg points out, has their images stored online and is therefore able to post as an embedded image - so there is no choice but to post as an attachment which then needs to be opened.
Click to expand...

Photobucket
Flickr
Rangefinder gallery.

There are more FREE places to put ones images than I can think of.
There are really nowadays NO excuses NOT to be able to link to images (and by doing so not burdening forum databases with megs of image files).

If anyone would like help/hints/suggestions on how to put your images on a free site and then how to go about linking to them please feel free to drop me a PM :)
 
Rich Silfver said:
a) I'm lazy,
b) I like scrolling through images (not thumbnails), and
c) I'm funny.

One of these days I will set up a charity aimed at providing dial-up users with much needed assistance to join the 21st century :)
Click to expand...

i wouldn't be without a fast connection but not everyone has that luxury, due to geographic location or budget concerns.

as single guys we maybe have more discretionary funds available.

nice of you to offer to help folks out with the photo storing sites.

joe
 
Rich Silfver said:
There are really nowadays NO excuses NOT to be able to link to images (and by doing so not burdening forum databases with megs of image files).
Click to expand...
I guess this brings up a couple more questions:
1. What should the physical size of the image file be? (I usually post as thumbs with an image 640 on the long side and under 100k total size).
2. Is outlinking preferable to attachment?

Peter
 
It can be confusing for anyone who has not done html-tags, etc.
I'm happy to share the little that I know on the topic.
PM away :)
 
peterc said:
I guess this brings up a couple more questions:
1. What should the physical size of the image file be? (I usually post as thumbs with an image 640 on the long side and under 100k total size).
2. Is outlinking preferable to attachment?

Peter
Click to expand...

for web posting if the image is saved at 72dpi there should be no problems.
 
Rich Silfver said:
Photobucket
Flickr
Rangefinder gallery.

There are more FREE places to put ones images than I can think of.
There are really nowadays NO excuses NOT to be able to link to images (and by doing so not burdening forum databases with megs of image files).

If anyone would like help/hints/suggestions on how to put your images on a free site and then how to go about linking to them please feel free to drop me a PM :)
Click to expand...

Rich
i'm fully aware of where to store pics online as i'm sure many others are - my point was some choose not to. That's all i was saying :)
 
RayPA said:
Attempting to standardize this is a good first step, and again the max length is 800 on the LONG side, and NOT wide.

:)
Click to expand...
Which, assuming an even distribution of images shot landscape format vs. portrait format, will be the width in 50% of cases :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom