RANT ON ----
Now we have the new improved forum, Why, oh, Why do members persist in posting photos using Photobucket or some other hosting site ??
Do they not realise that the attachments will disappear in time ?
Do they not care ?
Is it just laziness ?
A jpeg of almost 1Mb is BIG !!!!
and more to the point, remains for ever on the forum.
So please. if you are posting photos and you MUST use a web-hosting site, at least post a small jpeg so we can see what the heck you were on about when we visit the thread in a years time !!!
Ban PHOTOBUCKET !!
/RANT OFF
Now we have the new improved forum, Why, oh, Why do members persist in posting photos using Photobucket or some other hosting site ??
Do they not realise that the attachments will disappear in time ?
Do they not care ?
Is it just laziness ?
A jpeg of almost 1Mb is BIG !!!!
and more to the point, remains for ever on the forum.
So please. if you are posting photos and you MUST use a web-hosting site, at least post a small jpeg so we can see what the heck you were on about when we visit the thread in a years time !!!
Ban PHOTOBUCKET !!
/RANT OFF
If I were posting scope shots or some minor technical things, I'd usually attach them. First I'd make sure they were correctly sized and compressed by just the right amount so people with slow dial up connections (yeah, me!) could see them too. I've found peoples Photobucket stuff is near useless as the images are typically too large and Photobucket is slow as molasses for some reason. I skip on by 99% of anything that links to Photobucket.
OTOH, for more complex information I usually create a web page and link to that. I want control over my stuff, including the ability to edit mistakes where necessary. I hold copyright, especially on my photos, and don't turn it over to other sites as is usually the agreement. Even for my web pages I go to great trouble to use a very fast site, and size and compress my images so everybody gets a fair chance to see them. If I croak, yeah the stuff disappears. That's what the Wayback Machine is for.
CH
OTOH, for more complex information I usually create a web page and link to that. I want control over my stuff, including the ability to edit mistakes where necessary. I hold copyright, especially on my photos, and don't turn it over to other sites as is usually the agreement. Even for my web pages I go to great trouble to use a very fast site, and size and compress my images so everybody gets a fair chance to see them. If I croak, yeah the stuff disappears. That's what the Wayback Machine is for.
CH
I use diyaudio's system for posting here, and photobucket for posting elsewhere.
You say photobucket cuts off the picture after awhile? Do you know how long they leave the pic up before cutting it off?
You say photobucket cuts off the picture after awhile? Do you know how long they leave the pic up before cutting it off?
Me three!
Just because you own a digital camera does NOT mean you know how to use it.
There is really no excuse for image file sizes over 80K here on the forum, nor images wider than about 1200 pixels.
It's surprising how many tech savvy guys have no clue about images. I've been meaning to blog about that here, need to get to it.
Just because you own a digital camera does NOT mean you know how to use it.
There is really no excuse for image file sizes over 80K here on the forum, nor images wider than about 1200 pixels.
It's surprising how many tech savvy guys have no clue about images. I've been meaning to blog about that here, need to get to it.
At last, my protests have been heard !!
A moderator has started a blog about this subject. Thank you.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/blogs/pano/
I still thinkposting using photobucket or imageshack should be banned or at least blocked by the moderators.
Is this not possible for newbies still under moderation ?
Picture Removed - Too Large - Please repost using attachment
Andy
.
A moderator has started a blog about this subject. Thank you.
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/blogs/pano/
I still thinkposting using photobucket or imageshack should be banned or at least blocked by the moderators.
Is this not possible for newbies still under moderation ?
Picture Removed - Too Large - Please repost using attachment Andy
.
Mr. Picture here 😉
Don't agree with the above at all. Depending on the kind of detail you want to show, 80k doesn't cut it.
DIY site (or supposed to be) a grown up show and tell and details are not visible in a small pic.
Now, I do take the time to crop and compress my pics down from the ~2.6MB they come off the camera as and I use my judgment on the final size but it never exceeds 500k.
My longstanding practice has been a target of 800x600 @ <100kB via jpeg for anything I either upload, attach, or eMail.
Part of the reason for that is to protect my IP when something shows up on the web "for the taking" ... I've been taking photos for 35 years and used to sell a lot of images to magazines at one time. So I have no high resolution photos anywhere except a password-protected image site I have.
How deeply you can compress an image is highly dependent on what, exactly, it's an image of. A photo of blue sky compresses very well ... you could go way below 100kB at 800x600 in that case. A photo consisting of just grass with deep depth of field would not compress very well at all before you started losing important detail; about 150kB might be the limit. You can improve the eventual image detail by properly adjusting the histogram and pretty aggressive use of the sharpen control before reducing and saving as JPEG.
The corollary on this site might be a photo of a finished amp enclosure vs an interior shot intending to show the circuit board and components clearly.
80kB in my opinion is pretty aggressive as a top limit. Having said that, it's your site so you get to make the rules.
Part of the reason for that is to protect my IP when something shows up on the web "for the taking" ... I've been taking photos for 35 years and used to sell a lot of images to magazines at one time. So I have no high resolution photos anywhere except a password-protected image site I have.
How deeply you can compress an image is highly dependent on what, exactly, it's an image of. A photo of blue sky compresses very well ... you could go way below 100kB at 800x600 in that case. A photo consisting of just grass with deep depth of field would not compress very well at all before you started losing important detail; about 150kB might be the limit. You can improve the eventual image detail by properly adjusting the histogram and pretty aggressive use of the sharpen control before reducing and saving as JPEG.
The corollary on this site might be a photo of a finished amp enclosure vs an interior shot intending to show the circuit board and components clearly.
80kB in my opinion is pretty aggressive as a top limit. Having said that, it's your site so you get to make the rules.
Last edited:
A year ago here it was max 1000 x 1000 or 100kb. Made it tough to post anything showing good detail - schematics, charts and pictures alike. I had to open a photobucket account to post anything of any substance.
Now that there is a bigger capacity, I'm with poynton - attach them. It's really annoying to click on a pic and be redirected to an ad page for party poker or some other nonsense.
Now that there is a bigger capacity, I'm with poynton - attach them. It's really annoying to click on a pic and be redirected to an ad page for party poker or some other nonsense.
There isn't a rule, per se. Just a guideline. An 80-100K target is good, as it means that folks won't exceed it by too much. Like speed limits, you know? But 500K? I don't see the need.
As long as you are attaching them, it does not hurt the "bandwidth challenged" unless they click on the photo to view it.
More here: diyAudio - Pano
As long as you are attaching them, it does not hurt the "bandwidth challenged" unless they click on the photo to view it.
More here: diyAudio - Pano
Details. This, being a 'do-it-yourself' site, needs to accommodate the occasional show and tell. It's good when you don't need to get out the binoculars to see some detail.
350K:
80K:
350K:
80K:
imageshack now says
Welcome to ImageShack.
No registration required.
Free to use and enjoy.
```````````````````````````````````
seems to works ok -
more than 200,000 images
http://profile.imageshack.us/user/tomt45
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Last edited:
damn, you bat me. Clearly John doesn't have "size" in photoshop* down *(like "snow" for Eskimos).
dave
