[chancecatalyst]

How is it that all these posts that used to have full size pictures in them now just have thumbnail links to the larger pictures? Was this done automatically? Am I doing something wrong in still linking to full size pics?

Honestly, for forums like the razor clubs, I wish all the full size pics were still there. Trust me, I spent years using 19.8 kbs dialup, I know lots of pics is a bad thing for some people, but still...

[dwessell]

Hi chancecatalyst,

There's a reasoning behind it, and it may only be a temporary thing. We have made TREMENDOUS jump in traffic. We went from 60gigs last month, to 240gigs so far this month..

However, just click on the thumbnail, and you'll get the full picture

Thanks
David

[cwrighta70]

It seems that "linked" pictures (placing a link in between the IMG tags) show the full image. Images that are attached via the upload box on the Post Reply page are shown as thumbnails.

Is this true, David?

~Chris

[chancecatalyst]

Originally Posted by dwessell

Hi chancecatalyst,

There's a reasoning behind it, and it may only be a temporary thing. We have made TREMENDOUS jump in traffic. We went from 60gigs last month, to 240gigs so far this month..

However, just click on the thumbnail, and you'll get the full picture

Thanks
David

Thanks David! I figured it was something like that. Does linking to full size pictures hosted elsewhere like photobucket or flickr still contribute to the bandwidth usage? Should someone post a photo hosting tutorial so that people can still have full size pictures and lessen the load on the website at the same time? Or will that not work?

~Evan

[chancecatalyst]

Originally Posted by cwrighta70

It seems that "linked" pictures (placing a link in between the IMG tags) show the full image. Images that are attached via the upload box on the Post Reply page are shown as thumbnails.

Is this true, David?

~Chris

Yes Chris, that seems to be how it works. My images in teh Dubl Ducks Club page are still full size, having linked to them, and all others have shrunk to thumbnails.

[dwessell]

Originally Posted by cwrighta70

It seems that "linked" pictures (placing a link in between the IMG tags) show the full image. Images that are attached via the upload box on the Post Reply page are shown as thumbnails.

Is this true, David?

~Chris

Chris.. That's right.. if you use the img tags it'll still be full size.

Originally Posted by chancecatalyst

Thanks David! I figured it was something like that. Does linking to full size pictures hosted elsewhere like photobucket or flickr still contribute to the bandwidth usage? Should someone post a photo hosting tutorial so that people can still have full size pictures and lessen the load on the website at the same time? Or will that not work?

~Evan

Evan.. If you put the image on phootbucket, then it doesn't count against our bandwith.. HOWEVER.. I don't want us to have to worry about that, we'll purchase more if we need to.. And I don't want people having to reach around their elbow to scratch their *** with uploading stuff to PB. Plus if they go down, our images go down to.. We're fine on bandwith. I'm just being proactive to make sure we handle the huge amounts of growth well... Gotta make sure everyones playground is taken care of

[chancecatalyst]

I use Flickr just because I already have an account there, and I've never had any problems. I understand the precautions (well, the concept of them, the nitty-gritty details of bandwidth and such might still escape me), but I truly hope that such a change is temporary. Sticking with the example of the razor club pages, I really feel it detracts from the fun having to click on every picture. I've already heard matching concerns from someone on dialup, and I thought at first people with slow connections might be the ones to benefit from this/partly the reason for it. As much as I hate to make a suggestion that might lead to you keeping this change, perhaps use larger thumbnails?

~Evan

[dwessell]

And that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I've actually had suggestions from other users that they don't like the full size images in the posts, as they're to big for their screens.. So mabye we need to reduce the size of the main image, and do away with thumbnails altogether.

We'll certainly find the middle ground for everyone, that makes as many people thrilled as possible.. Image sizes are first on my agenda as soon as I finish the last of this major upgrade cycle..

Thanks for all of your suggestions, I like as much feedback from the community as possible. Even if I can't make everyone happy with the outcome, I like to try.

dw

Originally Posted by chancecatalyst

I use Flickr just because I already have an account there, and I've never had any problems. I understand the precautions (well, the concept of them, the nitty-gritty details of bandwidth and such might still escape me), but I truly hope that such a change is temporary. Sticking with the example of the razor club pages, I really feel it detracts from the fun having to click on every picture. I've already heard matching concerns from someone on dialup, and I thought at first people with slow connections might be the ones to benefit from this/partly the reason for it. As much as I hate to make a suggestion that might lead to you keeping this change, perhaps use larger thumbnails?

~Evan

[chancecatalyst]

Originally Posted by dwessell

And that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I've actually had suggestions from other users that they don't like the full size images in the posts, as they're to big for their screens.. So mabye we need to reduce the size of the main image, and do away with thumbnails altogether.

We'll certainly find the middle ground for everyone, that makes as many people thrilled as possible.. Image sizes are first on my agenda as soon as I finish the last of this major upgrade cycle..

Thanks for all of your suggestions, I like as much feedback from the community as possible. Even if I can't make everyone happy with the outcome, I like to try.

dw

And thanks for everything you do. Aside from the technical skill, I know it isn't easy finding the middle ground and I probably would have the patience to do it myself. That being said, I'll try to keep making suggestions when I have good ones. I just wanted to say that no matter if I disagree with what is done, what you do here is greatly appreciated.

[syslight]

for me i have never found an issue with the images attached here the size (700x700) seem goo for quality... the images that throw the threads off seem to be those nice hi-res images that ate linked in.

and my favorite part to linked images... when the user changes or rearranges their albums... all you get is "image not found"... which really sucks.

now if you could control the formatting of linked images that would be great... or just ban them make people upload to the site... I like spending Lynn's money

[chancecatalyst]

Another of the reasons I like using the picture hosting I do is that you have a choice of sizes that you can link to, but I agree the "image not found" scenario is quite annoying. I'd gladly start uploading them to the site though if they were to be full size. ...or ya know, if that's what it takes for things to run smoothly.

[hoglahoo]

Originally Posted by dwessell

And that's a pretty reasonable suggestion. I've actually had suggestions from other users that they don't like the full size images in the posts, as they're to big for their screens.. So mabye we need to reduce the size of the main image, and do away with thumbnails altogether.

We'll certainly find the middle ground for everyone, that makes as many people thrilled as possible.. Image sizes are first on my agenda as soon as I finish the last of this major upgrade cycle..

Thanks for all of your suggestions, I like as much feedback from the community as possible. Even if I can't make everyone happy with the outcome, I like to try.

dw

David, what we really need is an option for members to be able to set image size. I've seen people talking about how to do it in other VB forums, but I don't know what sort of VB code has to be implemented. My digital camera won't take photos less than 1000 pixel resolution, which means I have to either use SRP bandwidth, or link to another host, or resize the photo myself with my own photo editing software.

I do notice though that my photos themselves are resized to the set maximum res upon being attached to my profile. I could then link from posts to those photos, which might not be a bad idea....

Not that it's a big deal to me, but if you're looking into other options, please look into that one!

[Hooper]

I don't exactly see what the pixel/file size problem is. The past few versions of vBulletin have automatically resized jpg pictures when you upload them.

For example, the attachment below is a 1600x1200 1.97MB .jpg picture file directly from one of my digital cameras. It uploaded fine as an attachment and was resized automatically by vBulletin to 700x525. The resultant file size reduced to 148.6KB.

So I don't understand why most anyone would need to do any pre-processing of their pictures before they upload them (so long as the native file size is a little under 2MB).

If your camera produces files larger than that, then I'd bet you have a setting on the camera or your software that will reduce it. For example, my better digital camera has settings for picture sizes from poster size down to wallet-size (3x5 inches). The former creates jpg file-sizes greater than 3MB and the latter less than 100KB. I can also get the data from my camera in raw format, but it's hundreds of MBs which is simply a waste of storage for me (unless I'm working on solving a particular problem, and then I would have no problem resizing the picture).

YMMV

[jockeys]

The easiest way to resize pix is to use the Image Resizer powertoy from Microsoft.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

just right click the photo, enter resolution, and you're done.

[jockeys]

oh, and have I lost my mind, or is the ability to upload pix missing from certain threads? The attach button is missing on the DFW get together thread, I'm trying to upload some pix I took.

[hoglahoo]

Originally Posted by Hooper

I don't exactly see what the pixel/file size problem is. The past few versions of vBulletin have automatically resized jpg pictures when you upload them.

For example, the attachment below is a 1600x1200 1.97MB .jpg picture file directly from one of my digital cameras. It uploaded fine as an attachment and was resized automatically by vBulletin to 700x525. The resultant file size reduced to 148.6KB.

So I don't understand why most anyone would need to do any pre-processing of their pictures before they upload them (so long as the native file size is a little under 2MB). It only resizes attachments, and doesn't do anything with linked photos using the "insert image" button

If your camera produces files larger than that, then I'd bet you have a setting on the camera or your software that will reduce it. For example, my better digital camera has settings for picture sizes from poster size down to wallet-size (3x5 inches). The former creates jpg file-sizes greater than 3MB and the latter less than 100KB. I can also get the data from my camera in raw format, but it's hundreds of MBs which is simply a waste of storage for me (unless I'm working on solving a particular problem, and then I would have no problem resizing the picture). 1024 pixels wide is the smallest my camera will take photos.

YMMV

For me, it would still be simplest to be allowed image sizing directly within my message post like it is in html. I like the thumbnail change that was made though, it is a wonderful improvement.

[hoglahoo]

Originally Posted by jockeys

The easiest way to resize pix is to use the Image Resizer powertoy from Microsoft.

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/d...powertoys.mspx

just right click the photo, enter resolution, and you're done.

Assuming you can afford a Microsoft OS