Posting Pictures?

[DAVID CULBERTSON]

Another test for picture sizing, looks like it worked this time

[gary jones]

test pic from bluegrass 2009

[Scott Eller]

Hi folks,

I am EXTREMELY frustrated. I fully understand how to post photos. I have everything loaded in Photobucket. But for some INSANE reason, some will load and others givew me a "may only be up to 800 pixels wide" error. This is happening with photos that I have saved down to only 160 x 120 pixels! I have others that are 455 x 687 that work FINE like this:



HELP!!!!!

[Tim Wilson]

ok
ok
i give
I keep getting the following result: "It was not possible to determine the dimensions of the image"
am attempting to use an album from google picasa...
have attempted to resize... still no success
http://picasaweb.google.com/lh/photo/Kx775ohh90U0rf3j66bfyr37Le5qPy_zQg-a0GorhUM?feat=directlink

[r howarth]

Let me try. 600x450 Scott, If you email me your tag pic I'll try to post it for you. rhowarth1@pemtel.net

[johntice]

I have had similar problems when trying to post an image from Flickr, both on this forum and other forums. I have never had this problem when posting an image uploaded to my own server, but that's not to say it couldn't happen just that it seem to happen often when posting from the photo sites. What I found is that it's almost certainly due to a corrupted image file from which the forum script cannot read the pixel dimensions of the image. Try uploading the image again. If that doesn't work, try re-saving the image with a new name, then uploading it again. This has fixed it for me each time it has happened.

The max width on this forum is 800 pixels. If the image is that width or less, and the dimensions are readable from the image file, I don't believe this will occur.

[Scott Eller]

Let me try. 600x450 Scott, If you email me your tag pic I'll try to post it for you. rhowarth1@pemtel.net

Thanks for the offer. I guess Tice was right, the original file must have corrupted in the upload. I reposted to Photobucket and voila!

Thanks!
Scott

[Dave Withers]

The max width on this forum is 800 pixels. If the image is that width or less, and the dimensions are readable from the image file, I don't believe this will occur.

John - pixel width AND resolution MUST have something to do with the way the forum software deals with images. Otherwise, 800 pixels is not the viewable width allowed on this forum.

I have not done extensive testing but...if I do not size my images to 670 pixels in width they get cropped when I post them here.

The pic below is 800w x 633h with a resolution of 100ppi. It is cropped to a narrower width on the forum. Right click on image and view it on my server and you will see the right side has been truncated.

Dave

[johntice]

Dave,
The reason for that is that the content div is less than 800px, so the full size image crops on the right. I used to have it set to require the pixel dimensions that would display without cropping but it seemed that quite a few people were trying to post 800 pixel images (assume it's standard size on some image hosting sites) and those images would not post at all. So by raising the maximum and allowing it to overflow the div, more people are able to post their images successfully, even if it means they crop on the right. It's a matter of choosing the lesser evil. I could make the forum wider but at 960 pixels it's already a screen full on 1024 monitors, and I'll bet that's the most prevalent size.

John

[Dave Withers]

Well that explains it quite well. Now I can stop scratching my head. Thanks for the details. The need for a common denominator (or is it divisor) to accommodate the majority of pictures posted here makes sense

Typically I use a PS action to resize TVR pixs to 670. However my postings at other forums(I know, I know) are at least 800. I typically frame my shots even if resizing and the assymetrical cropping going on here has been somewhat annoying. It has kept my post count down.

dw

[johntice]

Dave,
We could make adjustments to make 800 pixel images fit without cropping. I wonder how many users would not be able to view the full width, and how many of those would be more than mildly annoyed at having to scroll horizontally? Maybe making the forum wider would be the lesser evil? Seven percent of our users are viewing the site with IE 6 or earlier, so I think it's safe to assume that while many of these folks may be on lower rez displays, they are also willing put up with the most egregious of annoyances without throwing chairs through windows.

I would guess that there is considerable correlation between the use of older browsers and low res monitors, but have no stats to back that up. This gets into an often debated area where there are not right or wrong answers. Many gurus believe display size is not even the critical factor- that the window size that visitors are using when they arrive is the important consideration. Right now, at the 960 px width, we are accommodating 90% of visitors (based on google's data) and if we increased the width by 130 pixels that number would go down to 50%. Of course that doesn't mean they couldn't view the site, only that it would be less than optimal for them. But based on what you are saying it's less than optimal for visitors, and more importantly- contributors, on the other end of the spectrum. Maybe we should try an experiment...

[johntice]

Ok, I set the overall forum width to 1090 but the right column increases proportionately so ended up with 1140 overall to display the 800px image without cropping. Think I'll run a poll to see if this presents any serious problems for anyone.

[Dave Withers]

Thanks John!

Now I can direct link pix from Photobucket without having to use a custom re-size on upload.

[GalenDiehl]

Practicing posting photos



http://photos.plaxo.com/photos/get/29/1/16/6/3077/67626-s-0.jpg

It took a few tries...

TIA