Author Topic: An appeal regarding photos (Read 1434 times)

slybarman · « **on:** January 12, 2013, 02:24:34 PM »

Steve:

Will you please reconsider the policy on photo hosting/linking? Web 2.0 is very heavily media dependent (photos and video) - especially for something like food. People need to see it to understand it (at least I know I do). The current photo size/number limits are really hard to work with. I spend the time shrinking the photos to well under the size limit and every time the server fights me on uploads. On average I try 5 or 6 times before I am successful in uploading photos. It gets to be a real drag. I just spent the last 15 minutes or so trying unsuccessfully to upload a few photos to a thread.

Having said all that, I know your storage and hosting are expensive and I know you operate the site at little/no cost to the users. I genuinely appreciate that. Allowing links to photo hosting would allow easier media handling without increasing your storage / bandwidth requirements.

Alternatively, I would not be upset if you monitized the site with banner ads or the like (especially from pizza supply vendors) if it meant it helped with the costs of media handling.

Anyhow - it is of course your site to do what you want with, but please give it some thought.

Qarl · « **Reply #1 on:** January 12, 2013, 04:26:27 PM »

I agree. the 128K upload limit is archaic. Is this 1998?

The excuse used to be server storage limits, but that is CHEAP now.

And literally every other forum I belong to (and I belong to a dozen or so) allow linking to an externally hosted image and placement in the message with the [ img ] [ /img ] tags.

mkevenson · « **Reply #2 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:03:59 PM »

I also have been a member of several sites that allowed external hosting of images. Unfortunately most 3rd party sites will delete the image in the thread if it is moved or deleted on the host site. My understanding of the pic rules here is to prevent threads where pics used to be but are now gone. I have found a couple pretty easy resizing programs that allow me to post pics here. Not art work but good enough to get the point across. Of course I am old and still living in the "old days" of technology.
Now where did I leave my abacus?

Mark

slybarman · « **Reply #3 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:07:17 PM »

Quote from: mkevenson on January 12, 2013, 05:03:59 PM

My understanding of the pic rules here is to prevent threads where pics used to be but are now gone.

Good point. That is pretty annoying too. If Steve could either up the size limit, or do the resizing automatically on his end, that sure would help a whole lot.

I just got frustrated as all heck earlier (and other times in the past) when i resized the pictures to about 75kb each and the server still rejects them.

Mal · « **Reply #4 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:09:55 PM »

Quote

The excuse used to be server storage limits, but that is CHEAP now.

I don't think storage is the issue. Bandwidth maybe. With all the traffic on this site from members, guests not to mention spiders, I can understand the limitation placed on image size.

Possible solution:
Is there anyway of restricting viewing full size images to those logged-in as members?

Pete-zza · « **Reply #5 on:** January 12, 2013, 05:15:05 PM »

Quote from: mkevenson on January 12, 2013, 05:03:59 PM

Now where did I leave my abacus?

Mark,

It's next to your slide rule.

Peter

bfguilford · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2013, 10:59:20 AM »

Quote from: Pete-zza on January 12, 2013, 05:15:05 PM

Mark,

It's next to your slide rule.

Peter

Seriously, while we may think that storage/bandwidth isn't a cost issue, there are a lot of people posting a lot of photos on this site, and very few people who are supporting (paying) members. As far as the forum software not doing the resizing, I think it's easy to forget that Steve set this up as a free resource, and he maintains the site as part of this free service. The man has a day job.

I use iPhoto, and export my photos as medium size/medium resolution files, and have no trouble posting. I have no experience with Windows-based tools, and will bow to others on this issue. Perhaps slybarman could start a new thread and ask others who have solutions to contribute their experience.

In my opinion (and I recognize that it's only my opinion, and I'm not looking to start a flame session here... I'll save the flame for baking my pies), there is no need for posting full size hi rez photos for people to be able to get a detailed enough view of your efforts.

Barry

Tscarborough · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2013, 11:58:13 AM »

I chafed at the size limit also at first, being a member of boards that allow linking and large pics. However, I have come to agree with the limitations.

First, linking leads to dead links, which totally suck. Here you can go back to the beginning and each and every picture posted is still there. Wonderful!

Second, huge ass pictures that make you scroll suck too. Some people have giant monitors and forget that the rest of the world does not.

Lastly, it is very easy to get the correct size photo, simply resize your pic to 600x450, and 99.9% of the time it will be less than 128kb. If in doubt, simply right click on the photo icon and check under "properties".

All that said, I WOULD like to see the limit upped so that 800x600 was supported, say 250 kb.

Qarl · « **Reply #8 on:** January 13, 2013, 12:32:24 PM »

No One is saying that they want to post full size high res images.

A 640x480 image was for when the average monitor was 1024x768 or 800x600. Most monitors are 1600x768 or 1600x900 or worst case 1280x1024

The size limit was also most useful when people had dial up. Probably 95% are on high speed Internet now with much better monitors.

Again, both were the norm 10 years ago.

It's 2013.... Get current!

Just increase the size limit to 256k and this can handle nearly everyone's concerns.

slybarman · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2013, 01:14:00 PM »

Quote from: bfguilford on January 13, 2013, 10:59:20 AM

Seriously, while we may think that storage/bandwidth isn't a cost issue, there are a lot of people posting a lot of photos on this site, and very few people who are supporting (paying) members. As far as the forum software not doing the resizing, I think it's easy to forget that Steve set this up as a free resource, and he maintains the site as part of this free service. The man has a day job.

Barry

I acknowledged all of those points in the OP and the point of the thread wasn't to stomp my feet and demand that Steve owe me (us) anything. I was simply asking him to give some thought to whether a change might improve the utility of the site.

Tscarborough · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2013, 01:14:44 PM »

I use 1024x768 on all nine computers I use.

slybarman · « **Reply #11 on:** January 13, 2013, 01:15:37 PM »

Quote from: Tscarborough on January 13, 2013, 11:58:13 AM

Lastly, it is very easy to get the correct size photo, simply resize your pic to 600x450, and 99.9% of the time it will be less than 128kb. If in doubt, simply right click on the photo icon and check under "properties".

I can resize photos all day in my sleep. However, it is driving me to madness when the server still rejects properly sized photos for whatever reason. Also, some of the utility of mobile access can't be recognized when photos must be resized on the user-end.

TXCraig1 · « **Reply #12 on:** January 13, 2013, 01:57:30 PM »

Quote from: slybarman on January 13, 2013, 01:15:37 PM

I can resize photos all day in my sleep. However, it is driving me to madness when the server still rejects properly sized photos for whatever reason. Also, some of the utility of mobile access can't be recognized when photos must be resized on the user-end.

I don't know why you have problems. I've posted as many pictures as anyone (OK, maybe not as many as Norma), and I've never had even a single problem with any picture 127K or less in size.

The 128K individual file size limit has not been a big problem for me; the 512K combined attachment limit however is REALLY ANNOYING and completely pointless. It just forces you to make unnecessary posts that force you to write something unnecessary in the message body. The server puking on a multiple picture upload because it was over 512K has just about put me over the edge several times.

slybarman · « **Reply #13 on:** January 13, 2013, 02:13:42 PM »

Ya know Craig. I think you have a point. I was not paying attention to the 512 combined limit and I bet that is why the server is giving me crap.

I guess that might be the main offender for me too then.

dellavecchia · « **Reply #14 on:** January 13, 2013, 02:16:06 PM »

Quote from: Qarl on January 13, 2013, 12:32:24 PM

It's 2013.... Get current!

Actually, the file size limitation has nothing to do with image resolution or monitor size, it has more to do with download speeds and browser responsiveness. Have you ever been to a website where the page loads and then the pictures slowly, slowly start to appear? That is because the images are 3mb each. 128k, in my view, is actually a little high. When I design sites, going over 60k for images make me uncomfortable due to the browser lag. And it also puts undue strain on the server.

And in regards to the upload limit, that has to do with PHP and server timeouts more than anything else. Uploading puts a great deal of strain on a server, and allowing long upload sessions with multiple files of a large size is really bad practice.

For the amount of traffic on this site and the number of users, the file limitations and upload limitations are right where they should be, IMHO.

In iPhoto, export as a Medium size JPEG, and Medium quality and you will always have pics that upload to the forum without a problem. Someone on Windows can make a suggestion for other programs.

John

bfguilford · « **Reply #15 on:** January 13, 2013, 02:40:58 PM »

Quote from: slybarman on January 13, 2013, 01:14:00 PM

I acknowledged all of those points in the OP and the point of the thread wasn't to stomp my feet and demand that Steve owe me (us) anything. I was simply asking him to give some thought to whether a change might improve the utility of the site.

My apologies if it came across that way. I've seen many complaints on this site, and not a lot of acknowledgement for Steve. Yours wasn't one of those. Next time, I'll let Steve respond.

Barry

slybarman · « **Reply #16 on:** January 13, 2013, 03:16:38 PM »

Quote from: bfguilford on January 13, 2013, 02:40:58 PM

My apologies if it came across that way. I've seen many complaints on this site, and not a lot of acknowledgement for Steve. Yours wasn't one of those. Next time, I'll let Steve respond.

Barry

No worries. I just wanted to be clear that this was a technical/usability issue, and not a question of appreciating our host.

Bill/SFNM · « **Reply #17 on:** January 13, 2013, 04:05:32 PM »

Quote from: dellavecchia on January 13, 2013, 02:16:06 PM

Someone on Windows can make a suggestion for other programs.

Lightroom (on Mac and Windows) allows you to specify the precise file size when exporting to JPG. I have an export preset for this forum; one mouse-click and all selected files get exported at 128K with maximum JPG quality and the resolution I choose. I could probably tweak the settings for a little higher image quality, but I'd rather spend the time making more pizzas and taking more photos.

wheelman · « **Reply #18 on:** January 13, 2013, 06:28:10 PM »

easy way for me is to open the picture in MS office and compress under the edit option. i think the resolution is fine as far as viewing goes.

bill

slybarman · « **Reply #19 on:** January 13, 2013, 06:39:52 PM »

Quote from: wheelman on January 13, 2013, 06:28:10 PM

easy way for me is to open the picture in MS office and compress under the edit option. i think the resolution is fine as far as viewing goes.

bill

That is what I typically use as well.

I think CraigTx hit the nail on the head for what my frustration really has been (aside from mobile use).