Sizes of pictures on RFF

[Olsen]

Stephen,

Can't we have larger photos here on RFF? And not by going from a picture at another web site like Flickr.

 

[user237428934]

I think today we have max. 800px for the gallery and max. 600px for embedded photos in a post and for both the max. size of a file is very restricted. I assume the size of the photos is directly related to the costs for the owner of this forum. So he won't allow really large files.
But even in the gallery you find really small stamps although people could upload larger files. I think 800 for the gallery is ok. 600 for embedded photos in a post is too small for me, should also be 800.

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Well I (and I assume a lot of other people) just don't bother to post. I'm certainly not going to set up and maintain a Flickr site or anything like it. Do images ever expire on the gallery or is it slowly building to monstrous proportions and contributing to the size issue?

 

[Roger Hicks]

Another request for bigger pics, if possible.

Cheers,

R.

 

[Keith]

One of my problems here had been trying to understand the bigger picture ... then I realised there wasn't really one to understand!

I was much happier after that discovery! 😛

 

[Leigh Youdale]

Very droll, Keith!

 

[raid]

Isn't 200k the max limit for gallery images?
I also join in asking for a (slightly) more forgiving image size policy for RFF, if possible.

 

[Keith]

Very droll, Keith!

It's been a droll old day Leigh ... seriously though I have no issues with the size of the gallery images. The restriction is 200 k but I've discovered that images sized at 900 pixels on the long side still look fine at this file size ... well to my eyes at least! 😛

 

[EliasK]

I think it would be better to set a limit for minimum dimensions first (like 700px for wider side).
Some people upload post stamp size images, not good for our old eyes. 😀

 

[kossi008]

Well how do I get my pictures to show full size (600 or whatever) when embedded? I only ever manage to post thumbnails. Yet some people have giant pictures in their posts... Go figure?

 

[former member]

The latter is easy: click on the image that you uploaded to get it into a new window. Cursor over the "URL Address" window, and Select the string. Copy it into your post, surrounded by the image command.

As far as bigger images: this has been a problem in the past with storage requirements and bandwidth. The thumbnails are "low bandwidth", the expanded images that are hosted at RFF use bandwidth. Images hosted off-site do not use bandwidth. Attachments are temporary, and "purged" every few years.

 

[ChrisN]

Well how do I get my pictures to show full size (600 or whatever) when embedded? I only ever manage to post thumbnails. Yet some people have giant pictures in their posts... Go figure?

No, that is the problem. If attached to a post (which saves the image as part of the RFF website) you are limited to a 600 pixel image. To display a larger image in a post, the image needs to be saved somewhere else on the 'net (like flickr) and displayed within the post by enclosing the image url within img tags.

eg [ i m g ] w w w . i m a g e . u r l [ / i m g ] (remove the spaces)

This works ok but please still limit the image size to something that fits easily inside most people's monitors. 🙂

 

[Ezzie]

The limit of 200K can be a bit hard to meet sometimes. Pictures (BW often) with a lot of rather uniform toned/coloured areas can end up being quite big (even more than 1000px to a side). Whilst others with lots of detail have to be shrunk to under 600px a side, either that or JPG quality reduced to 7 or maybe 8. I export my JPEGs from Aperture and tune the size to fit under the 200K limit, it might take a try or two.

Another issue: If an bulk upload fails (one or more pics too large, or other reason), the image upload counter doesn´t get annulled. Very annoying.

And lastly. Why am I only given the bulk upload interface? I used to have single upload interface, where one could add equipment info etc, which is not possible in bulk upload.

 

[eleskin]

This is why I am posting more photos on Leica Users Forun than this one. Here it is harder to downsize complex and high res files to an acceptable level for people to see. L U F has none of these problems. I agree with the need for change. Just have the same system as L U F.

 

[oftheherd]

The only problem I had was when I decided to put up an avatar. I finally figured that out by reading some other posts from more knowledgable people. I have found that when I post of flickr I don't have to do any downsizing, just put in the link as described above. It isn't a hugh photo, but it is adequate.

 

[Olsen]

This is why I am posting more photos on Leica Users Forun than this one. Here it is harder to downsize complex and high res files to an acceptable level for people to see. L U F has none of these problems. I agree with the need for change. Just have the same system as L U F.

Agree.

Even small Norwegian photo sites offers far larger picture sizes. A Russian photo site offers more than 1000 K.

By the way....

Stephen!

 

[Ezzie]

As long as somebody (else than me) is paying the bill to enable pictures to be put on the net I´m happy. So I won´t stop uploading here. I like the environment here, and I´d rather be getting criticism, one way or the other, from this crowd than any other.

Other sites have other ways of financing their storage needs. APUG would rather have you, the user, sponsor them, others have annoying advertisements all over, even in the threads (every few posts). This site is not devout of ads and such, but what is is very unassuming.

 

[former member]

A small site with few users and low activity is not going to be bound by storage and bandwidth limitations. I use a small site with generous size limits for my images. If the downloads start cutting into the bandwidth alotment for the site, then the site owner gets hit with extra charges.

1MByte attachments translate to 8MBits of bandwidth per download. Multiply that by the number of hits on a thread, it adds up.