Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Dypsisdean

Allowable Pic Sizes

Recommended Posts

Dypsisdean

Admin Guys,

Would it "break the bank" to up the allowable pic size to 125? Some are having trouble getting under 100, and I know a lot of mine come in at 110 or so, and I lose a lot of detail taking the next step down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MattyB

I have to adjust the size of all my pics but some of them do often come in around 115 and then I have to readjust.  They do get too small.  Those of us who upload to the forum directly from our computer have pretty pathetic pics compared to the guys who use a server like photobucket.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

I never have a problem reducing "portrait" shots to less than 100, but on a number of occasions when I was reducing "landscape" pics that had a lot of detail I wasn't able to get them under 100, so couldn't post them. I can easily get them below 110, so if the 100 limit were to be raised to 115 or so, that'd be very useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BS Man about Palms

I'm with you guys 100% on this one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
deezpalms

I have to agree. I don't have any problems posting and resizing images but I do lose alot of detail when I resize so small. I might start using photobucket to get slightly bigger pictures in but that's just another step to take in an allready long process to post photo's.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
BS Man about Palms

Part of the reason I prefer to download to the site is that as the threads get old and time goes by, the pictures don't disappear!   Photobucket drops them out at some point.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert Lee Riffle

Hey, guys.

I do understand all the above reasons.  (Guess one reason why-I-'VE NEVER POSTED A PIC!

We can up the length somewhat (I think) but please remember that, at SOME point, we'll hafta "pay the piper."  Even though we have lotsa room and better software (once we find all the hidden traps!) there will come a point at which we must start pruning the jungle growth (Mike used the analogy of my jungle in Houston), lest we once again overburden the server.

So .... talk among yourselves  ;-)) and decide if that's really what you want.  And then let us know.

Another consideration is that we really would like to have a good photo gallery; and although this can be separate from the forum, it will still be on the same server and, even if we use "thumbnails" that expand, there's still, of course, overhead.

In any case, there will eventually have to be some photos deleted at some point.  I will have to make the decisions as to which.  It will be easy to say which ones will NOT be retired and also which ones WILL be retired.  But it's the "in between" that will get (as they used to say, "hairy."

And guess what!  Once done, I will brook no complaints about what I've done.

So THERE!

--Ruff Rif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walter John

Hi all

Robert , you are once again considerate and generous with your time and management with this OUTSTANDING forum.

I don't agree that photo size be increased which could potentially bring on an archival process of existing photos.

I can take a photo of palms in my garden, upload to my PC, resize them to 800 x 600 in the free program "Ultimate Paint",  upload to Photobucket, post a message on the board using the link to Photobucket for the photos and less than 10 minutes has elapsed from the time I ventured downstairs to take the photo. This is not what I consider a long process.

I say don't fix what is not baroque.

Amen.

Doesn't anyone want to swap aloha shirts ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Bob (and Mike),

It was just an idea I had after having several people send me their files because their PCs where unable to get the size that small on some pics. (My Mac can)

I didn't see how a 25% increase would be a major event. If it is, don't worry about it, I don't have the problem, although I would like to post more detail.

However, from what a gathered in your response, it doesn't matter if we increase sizes or not, there will still come a time that pics will need to be deleted, just not as soon. I would submit, that is indeed a problem. With storage so cheap these days, I don't understand why this should be the case. I just saw a 500 GB hard drive offered for $160. My math tells me that would store 5,000,000 pics at 100 kb.

Granted, I don't pretend to know how you guys have everything set up, but I didn't think storage would be an issue. I was just throwing out an idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Oh, and Bob, when the heck do you sleep?  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dave Butler

(Dypsisdean @ Jul. 22 2006,04:08)

QUOTE
Bob (and Mike),

It was just an idea I had after having several people send me their files because their PCs where unable to get the size that small on some pics. (My Mac can)

I didn't see how a 25% increase would be a major event. If it is, don't worry about it, I don't have the problem, although I would like to post more detail.

However, from what a gathered in your response, it doesn't matter if we increase sizes or not, there will still come a time that pics will need to be deleted, just not as soon. I would submit, that is indeed a problem. With storage so cheap these days, I don't understand why this should be the case. I just saw a 500 GB hard drive offered for $160. My math tells me that would store 5,000,000 pics at 100 kb.

Granted, I don't pretend to know how you guys have everything set up, but I didn't think storage would be an issue. I was just throwing out an idea.

Dean,

I think the biggest problem with allowing larger sizes is that photos use up a lot of bandwidth. Each server that hosts web site or forums have a limit on bandwidth which there allowed. The bandwidth amount on my web site is huge, but everytime a photo is visited or downloaded its consumes a lot and my site will shut down. I know what my problem is and that my photos are to big.

Not saying that is the problem here but its a possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Robert Lee Riffle

Dean et al.--

Dave B has the answer.  I have a total of ca. 300 gigs here at home; but it just ain't comparable when talkin' bout the server.  It's the "bandwidth."

And I'm not saying we definitely should not increase the upload size from the preset 100 to 125 or so.  But then, where does it stop.  Some members will doubtless find whatever we set it to inadequate.

And, Wal, the problem with using PhotoBucket as opposed to this server is that those linked photos will disappear (be unavailable) rather quickly  So, if they're (the photos) worthy, they can't be archived; the linke will be broken.

For me the solution is to prune out less than great photos (along with the concomitant msgs) periodically.   This is something that was not done on the old board as I was not then in complete charge of things.  It's a lot of work maintaining a forum like this one.

Dean, what does that mean, "When do you sleep?"  What is "to sleep?"  Is it like "to prune?"  {THUD!!}

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

Bob,

Just adding my two cents (and as I alluded to above), I've found on numerous occasions that I can only reduce a certain photo (with lots of detail) to 102 or 104KB, annoyingly close to the 100 limit, but still above. Am I the only one with this particular problem? So, even 110KB would make quite a difference for me. And since I'm unclear on exactly what the long-term implications are, it's impossible for me to address that issue.

Bo

And yes, I also wondered when you sleep.... (And for those who're not familiar with our time differences, when it's 10 pm here in Hawaii, it's 4 am on the East Coast, and guess who's still up - or should that be ALREADY up??)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Dypsisdean

Bo (and Bob),

Those were exactly my thoughts. I just picked 125 as a nice number. I didn't know that it was a bandwidith issue, and was at such a premium. But 110 would make a diff for me as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walter John

(bgl @ Jul. 22 2006,18:24)

QUOTE
Bob,

Just adding my two cents (and as I alluded to above), I've found on numerous occasions that I can only reduce a certain photo (with lots of detail) to 102 or 104KB, annoyingly close to the 100 limit, but still above. Am I the only one with this particular problem? So, even 110KB would make quite a difference for me. And since I'm unclear on exactly what the long-term implications are, it's impossible for me to address that issue.

Bo

And yes, I also wondered when you sleep.... (And for those who're not familiar with our time differences, when it's 10 pm here in Hawaii, it's 4 am on the East Coast, and guess who's still up - or should that be ALREADY up??)

Bo

I don't understand why you can't reduce to 100k or less, what program do you use ? I may be able to help

RLR

Understand the link situation. One would think if one really wants to keep/hold on to/ grab someone else's photos, one should do something about it when one sees the photo in the first place. You know, "save as" etc. etc., just like hundreds have probably done on seeing my aloha shirt collection. I bet there's shirt companies copying my designs as we speak :D

To All

If you like a post and want to keep it, then select it and copy to a file on your own PC drive, it's that easy, don't be lazy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

Wal,

I use a software program called FinePixViewer, that came with my digital camera. When I want to upload a photo to the Forum, I go into the program, send an e-mail to myself with the photo. As I do so, the program is giving me three choices:

1) Attach without resizing

2) Resize to 1280x960

3) Resize to 640X480

When I use the first option, I typically have attachments that are about 350-400KB. I never use #2. I always use #3 for photos to the Forum, because this one will typically get the photo down to 60-90KB, but if the photo is in landscape format with a lot of detail, it'll be just over 100KB, typically 102-108KB. I CAN get around this by taking "portrait" type shots if I suspect this is going to happen, but it's a nuisance (and the photo is not going to be as nice, since there's less detail).

Bo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
bgl

Dean,

Thanks! I'll remember to show it to our "computer guy" next time he stops by. The older I get, the more skeptical I am towards ANY kind of change, ESPECIALLY if it involves a computer.....

Bo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Walter John

(Dypsisdean @ Jul. 23 2006,00:01)

QUOTE
Bo,

When I used a PC, I used a freeware program call Picsizer. It worked well. You may wish to check it out.

http://www.axiomx.com/picsizer.htm

Hi Dean

I used it and it works fine. Thanks for the tip.

Bo,

Giive it a go.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...