Scottish Rock Garden Club Forum
Administration => General => Topic started by: Maggi Young on November 26, 2006, 09:34:39 PM
-
It has been mentioned that most of the photos on the new forum are very small, shown in "thumbnail" size. The forum setup is, generally, arranged to show pictures in this small, "preview" type way when a page is opened.
This has several advantages. It makes each page file smaller and therefore quicker to upload... a feature especially appreciated by those using dial-up rather than broadband connections.
This also allows anyone wanting a quick browse through the page to get a flavour of the photographs, then they need only enlarge those they are keen to see more of.
AND ...THIS IS THE POINT AT ISSUE : The thumbnails you see are just that.. they are mini previews: left click once with your mouse on the photo or the file name below it and the photo will be displayed at its full size.
There is no way to enlarge the forumists ID photos, as far as I know, which, in most of our cases, is probably just as well!!
The Scottish Rock Garden Club Web Team is pleased to announce that a feature to allow automatic resizing of photographs loaded to the SRGC Forum has been added. This will remove the need for forumists to resize photos before posting.
We hope this will encourage posting from those who found resizing difficult or time-consuming.
Many thanks to Fred C. our wonderful Forum Admin for this facility.
Further update ..... A reminder about posting photos
the SRGC Forum has undergone some changes recently and if using the (attachimg=1) code ( " inline full-size image option" ) - with the square brackets (rather than the ones I've used to allow you to see without confusing the system with code) it is possible to attach larger photo sizes which will be automatically resized to the page and open in the text box.
These are the square brackets [ ]
8) 8)
This screengrab shows what a post will look like when this method is used to add photos in the text - using pretty much any device it seems, i-pad, smartphone, whatever![attachimg=1]
-
I'm happy with the thumnails. The larger image appears very quickly, another click send it back to athumbnail and one moves on to the next
-
Thanks, Mark, that's the reasoned approach.
-
Hello, just a note to remind everyone that the photos shown in the forum pages are merely thumbnails... to see a full sized version of any pic, just click on the picture and a larger version will open for you to see the image more clearly.
Example, [attach=1] shows a thumbnail shot... click on the picture to see the full horror of a pink spider!
Clicked photo will expand to this size :
[attachimg=2]
Expanded photo may be larger or smaller than this example but will always give you a clearer image than the thumbnail.
This shows how the text of a post like this will look before posting ....
[attachimg=3]
-
A point about using "Photobucket" to upload photos to the Forum:
Photobucket- problems with picture display
« on: 30th December 2008 at 10:45:24 AM »
From Andrew:
I have just come to a topic that is a month old and the pictures that have been posted are not there because the user has used photobucket and the pictures have been deleted or moved on photobucket.
I have also had this with a topic that was a couple of months old. One of the great features of this site is being able to search previous posts and find photos for comparision.
So can all users of photobucket consider its use please, are you still going to be using/have access to it in one/two/ten years time, is photobucket still going to be around, do you have backups of all your photos elsewhere ?
Other users upload photos to forum directly, it is not hard and they will hopefully be around for a long time to come.
I suspect it is going too far to call for a ban on photobuckets use, Maggi ?
Rant over, thank you for reading, I hope you can see where I am coming from .
My reply:
A good point, Andrew. I have noticed this problem on other sites and was aware that it could happen here....though happily it is rare.
As Andrew says, it is not hard to upload photos to the Forum and if users would be good enough to use other methods than Photobucket, that would be much appreciated.
If anyone has uploaded photos by that route, could they perhaps look back at their posts to check that the pix are still visible and possibly repost them by other means. Posts are available to modify without lmit of time , so the original post can easily be amended.
Andrew, and others, is you would be so kind as to inform me of threads/posts where you come across this problem, I will be pleased to contact the Posters to see if they can re-post.
Cheers,
Maggi
-
I post again here, a note from many moons ago, in the "Trouble posting to the forum? Help is at hand! "
on: February 04, 2007 ...it seems that this is a point which bears repetition :P
A hint about posting photos: please include the name of the plant in the text of your post. Plant names will show in file names displayed beneath some picture posts, depending on how they are loaded, but such names are not picked up be the search facility. As John Finch replied to a post:
"Hi,
lovely pictures - thank you.
I wonder if you may have time to edit your post to include the names of the flowers that you have shown as text. When someone uses the search facility within the forum they do not find words that are only included as part of the image names. The search only looks at the actual typed text within a post.
Just thinking of the future and making the SRGC forum as useful and searchable for others as possible.
cheers, John.
Well said, John. A useful point. Please take note , everyone! M
-
I will take the chance here, to say again than photos for the Forum are best sized no more than 760 x 555pixels and less than 200 Kb to allow for ease of viewing on the average monitor, without scrolling left to right. This 760 x 555 pixels size is great for landsacape format photos: for portrait format, it would be best to stick to the smaller option of 560 x 418 or so for those.
The need to scroll irritates readers greatly, we have found!!
I would recommend that anyone new to the Forum read, and, PLEASE, pay attention to the advice given in this thread:
"New to posting to the forum? Help is at hand!" http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=2.0 (http://www.srgc.org.uk/smf/index.php?topic=2.0)
Thanks! M
If you have any questions about these matters please email info@srgc.org.uk
-
It seems that there are still visitors to the Forum pages who are not aware that, in the case of the smaller photos appearing on these pages, that it is possible to left-mouse- click on each photo to bring up a larger version of the shot for your interest and pleasure!
Think the photos look a bit small?
Click the pic and see the difference!!
-
Please note this advice: We always suggest a maximum of 750 x 555 pixels for regular forum photo postings.... long experience has told us that this is a size which can be readily viewed on the majority of monitors without scrolling from left to right
Larger photos especially when posted in multiples, are very tricky to see properly , because the east-west scroll bar is displayed at the foot of the post and the need to go up and down as well as back and forth , in an attempt to catch the main focus of a shot proves very irritating to many viewers!
Pix 800 wide do not need too much scrolling to see the whole image, so many may be content to simply view what is initially shown on enlarging the picture...... but larger photos can effectively be impossible to "read" properly. At least with the 750 by 555 maximum for landscape format, the reader has the pleasure of being able to see the entire image at once.
Or 750 pixels as a maximun length, of course.
Again, I emphasise that we are aware from the majority of our feedback that readers prefer the "official" size photos!
-
As we get into our stride with a new year, may I remind forumists that in spite of the fact that some folks have large computer monitors, it is still Forum practice to have pictures posted at a maximum of 760 pixels wide (unless for particular magnification of ID features on occasion)
This is a more comfortable viewing size for those with smaller screens and also, I am advised, for anyone with a visual disability.
Thank you!
M
-
Posting to the SRGC Forum
A device to resize your photos can be downloaded here:
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=9993.0 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=9993.0)
Recently the number of pictures per post and the size of each picture, has been changed to be 5 (five) pictures per post and a maximum of 200kb per picture.
N. B. The Scottish Rock Garden Club Web Team is pleased to announce that a feature to allow automatic resizing of photographs loaded to the SRGC Forum has been added. This will remove the need for forumists to resize photos before posting.
We hope this will encourage posting from those who found resizing difficult or time-consuming.
Many thanks to Fred C. our wonderful Forum Admin for this facility.
Starting a New Topic
Browse to the board where you wish to post and select the New Topic button (positioned by default at both the top and the bottom of the board), which should take them to the Start new Topic screen. While this presents a number of options, the two most important are the Subject field and main Message field (not labeled as such, but obvious by its size). So enter your subject and start to type (or paste) your message in the main text area. If you're happy with your plain text message, you can post it by selecting the Post button and/or preview it first by selecting the Preview button.
Replying to a Post
Replying to a topic is nearly the same as starting a new topic, but it is not necessary to enter anything in the Subject field unless you wish to change what's already there. You may also be able to do other things with the post, such as attaching a file to a post.
If 'Quick Reply' has been enabled, a simple Reply field will also appear after the posts on a page, but you will have to type your Bulletin Board Code and Smileys manually if you choose to use it.
Quoting a Post
To reply to a post by quoting it, you can either select the Quote button for the relevant post and edit out any part you wish to discard or select the Reply button followed by copying and pasting therelvantwords between the quote code that appears when you click the "speech ballon" icon in the menu above the text box.
Using Smileys
Just click on a smiley to have it appear in the text box where you last typed.
Attaching photos to a post
To make a post with photos, once you have the text box there, write your text then click on " Attachments and other options" at the bottom left under the text box..... a new area will appear with "ATTACH".............browse (more attachments) "
To load the first picture, click on "Browse" ......a box will open which will allow you to navigate to the folder on your computer where you have the relevant photo stored..........
select the photo file from where you have it saved on your computer (by making a left-mouse-button click on it) this will enter the name of the photo file in the display section of the box.....next click on the "Open" button in the box; the photo will be loaded ready to appear in the post (though pictures are not visible until the whole post has been loaded to the Forum by clicking the "POST" button)
.... then you can repeat the process, from clicking on the browse and (more attachments) button and repeat the process for as many pictures as you have, up to FIVE pictures in each post.
You can add the photos up to FIVE at a time ... either at the end of your post, by selecting End-of-post-expandable thumbnail button or use one of the choices shown in the photo below:
[attachimg=1]
but it is easier to place your cursor where you want the pic to appear then choose the size via the choices offered when you browse to find the file. Size is important.......
Photos for the Forum are best sized no more than 760 pixels wide and compression to around 100 Kb gives a perfectly good photo for viewing on screen: this is to allow for ease of viewing on the average monitor, without scrolling left to right. This 760 pixels wide size is great for landscape format photos. The need to scroll irritates readers greatly, we have found!!
A hint about posting photos: please include the name of the plant in the text of your post. Plant names will show in file names displayed beneath some picture posts, depending on how they are loaded, but such names are not picked up be the search facility.
Lastly, when you have completed your post, click on the button Post to load your post.
If you may take a long time to write any text, it is always a good idea to prepare your text beforehand, either in a word document or email to allow you to finalise that and then copy an paste your text quickly to the box.
Extra help:
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=2.0 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=2.0)
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=65.0 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=65.0)
Another version of the posting options
[attachimg=2]
-
Some forumists seem to have trouble getting their pictures down to the forum limit of 200kb without having to show a very small picture - this is not something that need be a problem. You will see that many photos are posted successfully on the forum at the full recommended size of a max. of 760 pixels wide.......
G: Asarum dimidiatum (not sure you will be able to make it out in the small size pictures we have to post nowadays!)
M: You can still post photos that are under the 200KB limit that are up to 760 pixels across- plenty big enough!
G: I take your point but as most of my full data pictures are between 3-4MB, the hassle of getting them down below 200kb now takes a couple of hours when once I could edit and annotate the full size pictures, press edit, select all, 600 max dimension and hey presto I had the lot in less than 5 mins, now to keep below 200kb and yet have a picture that is close to the limit (otherwise you have such a small picture on the forum that its not worth looking at) you virtually have to single resize every one (or do continual batch resize to get below 200, editing in the ones that fit) is such a time consuming effort I have to wonder if it is worth it. If by chance you hit on 200kb dead on the server rejects these as too large.
Is just my point of view, others more technical may have an easier way.
C: I too used to batch resize my images and posted far more than I do now ... I now resize individually and it is a time consuming procedure that inhibits the hours I can spend putting presentations together or working in the garden.
M: I have just batch resized 365 pictures - many were nearly 5 MB and all are now under the 200kb limit for the forum when resized to max 760 pixels wide.
Ian Y. advises that if you are not getting down to under 200Kb with resizing for the forum, using whatever programme you have, then you need to adjust the compression as well as selecting the pixel size. Our ACDSee programme shows us this choice as a slider for "best compression to best quality" but others will vary, of course.
(A photo “showing” its size at 200kb will actually be a little larger when the data files are included and this will make it "over the limit" for posting)
-
A reminder that if plant names/photo titles etc are not mentioned in the text then the search facility will not recognise their existence and so they will effectively become "invisible"
Please be sure to add photo titles and plant names in the text box when you post photos so that the information contained in the forum can be fully searchable and so more useful.
It is possible for members to return to previous posts they have made to edit the text etc - simply click on the "modify" button to the upper right of the relevant post......
-
Forum photo size advice - forum recommended size :
While a large photo can be glorious and can look very good when it is displayed alone on a page, in the Forum the restrictions of the text boxes etc do mean that photos larger that 760 pixels wide will not be seen to their best advantage.
I take this opportunity to once more urge members to re-size their photos to a maximum of 760 pixels wide - it is possible, as is made clear by the number of very excellent photos on the forum which adhere to this ruling, to have perfectly good quality photos displaying the details and beauty of a plant while remaining within the 760 pixels wide and under 200kb limits.
As an example I show this Crocus photo from Steve Garvie !
[attachimg=1]
-
For those who find the photo too large to see in their entirety on the screen, you can reduce them to a suitable size by use of your "mouse" - left click on the page then hold down the "control "(Ctrl) button and roll the mouse's scrolling wheel towards you.
-
Nice to get feed back, just been having a look at some of my pics to see how they come over, rather a pity some are very small, I cannot read the writing on the culture notes for the two rare primula shown by Cyril for example. I had pared down and edited about 40 pics that I thought would be ok for the forum but instead of resizing them on an individual basis down to <200meg I did a block resize all in one go and as my programme does not let me resize in megs but in size I guessed what would fit all....now see that some are too small to have been worth posting in my view....my apologies. I will redo the notes if Maggi can fit them in in place of the too small ones
I think if you edit for picture width of 760 pixels rather than the "less than 200KB" then I think that for the most part you will find that you have a bigger picture and still be "under the limit"
That works for me when using ACDSee to edit photos -some of which are around 5MB to start with. I am no techy expert so you may need to find someone with that kind of brain to advise you more. If you are using one of these cameras which takes 15MB files, then I don't know what will happen - we need Steve G. to help with that one I think!
-
The Scottish Rock Garden Club Web Team is pleased to announce that a feature to allow automatic resizing of photographs loaded to the SRGC Forum has been added. This will remove the need for forumists to resize photos before posting.
We hope this will encourage posting from those who found resizing difficult or time-consuming.
Many thanks to Fred C. our wonderful Forum Admin for this facility.
-
Quote from: Jupiter on July 26, 2015, 10:59:11 PM
Maggi the new image resizing tool destroyed my pics... :-\ maybe some subtle tweaking, jpeg compression settings are cranked up to technical level, I can see efficiency is winning out over fidelity. ;
For comparison., hosted on flickr vs. srgc
Jamus, I've compared the two photos and I can see there is a difference in sharpness.
The flickr hosted pic is downloading here as 497 x 640 pixels / 77KB. The second is 543 x 700 pixels / 15KB
I regret that there is this slight detriment to your most excellent quality photos. I think, though, that if you were to load pix pre-sized to the SRGC limits, pixel wise, (750 max wide, 700 max high) you would still be able to load a higher resolution. I have tested that and it is possible.
The reasoning behind the introduction of the automatic sizing function is that many people have said that the chore of resizing their photos put them off posting pix and indeed it was clear that some found it very difficult and others were simply ignoring the sizes asked for. Naturally, we want as many people as possible to feel relaxed about both posting and viewing pictures on the forum.
We would prefer that pictures are posted directly to the forum, since there have been instances in the past where photos of interest have been lost to the forum and to discussions here, because of outside hosting site accounts not being maintained or removed. The integrity of discussions on plant differences and so on has thus been compromised which seems a great pity in one of the few places where all are welcome to join in and many terrific pieces of plant related information have been shared openly in a place where it can remain n a searchable form.
I have looked into the question of whether, for those wishing to have a higher resolution for their photos, the "old" resizing method will still work, but I hope you will acknowledge the benefit of this new function to the average member who seeks an easy route, or for those seeking to load many photos, say of a show, for the benefit of the wide audience unable to see such events in person.
I have seen that it is possible to load a photo within the size restriction up to the 200KB limit which will allow for the posting of higher resolution photos by the previous method, which will, I hope satisfy those seeking such refinements. In saying this, there is no doubt that perfectly sharp and very detailed photos have been posted on the Forum well within the pixel restrictions and often well below 100 KB in size so there is plenty scope for all, we hope.
-
I mentioned in another thread that I felt it might be best not to use "huge" photo files to enter into the new automatic resizing system. Someone had asked about their 24MB pictures .......
My technical understanding of these things is limited - I just bring the news, basically! But I think that feeding in enormous files of 15MB or 24MB and the like will take more processing than the system is built for- and perhaps more than the average internet connection will "enjoy" - I hope to get Ian to learn more about all this stuff from Fred so I can find out how things work so I can give a clearer answer. Certainly the system seems to have no trouble resizing pix which are around 2MB.
I do know that big files take ages to be sent via email so cannot think that they are not liable to clog up the resizing system rather - I stand to be corrected on this, of course - I'm working on instinct meantime.
I imagine that those with very large files will be tech savvy enough to find it reasonably easy to re-size initially to a batch re-size that might be convenient then use the automatic system to allow a sure "fit" for the forum.
-
My technical advisors tell me that it will likely be a pain to members to have to post huge picture files as the uploading of them will take ages. So, if you do have very large photo files you might be better off reducing them somewhat BEFORE you enter them into the automatic resizing system :)
-
Another helpful suggestion from Mike Ireland, who has forgotten more about photography than I'll ever know! 8)
I use a program called TinyPic, http://tinypic.en.softonic.com/ (http://tinypic.en.softonic.com/) for resizing for the SRGC site.
Could not be easier, drag & drop file in & resized file is put back to original folder prefixed with a K so keeping the original file intact.
You can choose between 4 different file sizes. Program is free to download. Its brilliant.
Mike
-
I have tweaked the integrated upload resizer to improve the image resolution.
It's still better to resize before you upload as this gives you more control over the final results.
-
Thank you Fred - what would we do without you?
-
I have a number of other pics however I'm still having trouble getting them to load even though the file sizes are only 427 x 640 pixels and 293 KB.
Not sure why the image resizing tool isn't working for me and I keep on getting an error message of "Your file is too large. The maximum attachment size allowed is 200 KB ".
I think I may have twigged why you are having this trouble !
If you are trying to load photos that are so much smaller in pixel size than the size system is set up to reduce things to, but they are still above 200kbs, the system WILL reject them.
The system's main purpose is to reduce the photos to conform to the the maximum allowed pixel size so that they are at an optimum viewing size for the forum. Max size is (750 max wide, 700 max high and under 200kb)
It might be easier for you to resize the pictures to around 800 max dimension - chances are they would then be less than 200kb anyway and load right away. The system seems to be fine for others so long as the original file is not too big (xx MBs in size) in which case it is likely to be your connection which causes any problems, I am informed.
-
Quote from: brianw on October 27, 2015, 08:14:23 PM
Can you explain why sometimes I click on a thumbnail and it opens a new window rather than just enlarging? Sometimes in the same posting I get both ways of opening.
:-\ I have absolutely no idea, Brian - it happens that way for me too.
Fred Admin has come up with the answer - when photos are posted as full size images within a post the automatic resizing tool resizes them completely - but when larger sized pictures are posted as end of post thumbnails the system opens them in a new window, but resized there to avoid scrolling to view the pix.
-
Quote from: Maggi Young on February 15, 2016, 11:31:25 AM
No idea - it may be an error caused by an update. Please ignore and use 200kb limit per pic.
EDIT: Yes, it was an error - please note and stick to the 200KB per pic limit.
Quote from fermi: That's a pity :( The size had been increased to 300KB a while ago and now is back to 200KB I see! More time needed to re-size properly!
I'm sorry you feel badly about this, fermi - the "increase" to 300 was also a mistake - something that slipped in with an update - but we really must keep the size down to prevent the forum files from being too huge .
Reducing the size of pictures with ACDSee which is what I use is very simple and , of course, there is the resizing tool provided for the Forum which those who use tell me is also good.
I must also say, to those who think only a larger picture is "any use" (!!) that even a photo of 640 pixels wide and under 100KB can look very good on screen - and there is always the capacity to enlarge a photo on screen if desired. Take for example some shots by Steve Garvie - they are often around 760 x 500 and a file size of 90KB - and they are quite superb!
example photo from Steve Garvie :
[attachimg=1]
-
I know where Fermi is coming from but see it from the technical perspective too. With jpeg compression it's not just a case of this many pixels by this many pixels, the size of the image will depend highly on how 'busy' it is. A simple flower against a clear background will compress far more than a busy image of lots of small flowers with lots of detail. That's just how the jpeg compression algorithm works. Fermi's images of Clematis 'golden tiara' are necessarily going to larger files than Steve's Lilium, for instance. Don't get me wrong, I'm not complaining! Just getting technical on a subject which I happen to understand.
-
For instance these two pictures which I made the same physical size, 900 x 600 pixels
-
Yes, I know all that, Jamus - but the fact remaians that 1) we need to keep the files of the Forum to as manageable a size as possible to keep broadband use etc withing bounds , and you larger photo sizes (per pixel size) illustrate another difficulty - over the whole history of the forum people have complained about large photos making it necessary to scroll across them or reduce them on screen to be able to see the whole image - now, photos of the size you have just posted, will open in a new window - something which many dislike and will not therefore be enlarged at all. Which in my view is a shame. It is obvious that if a photo is clear at thumbnail size, many people will not bother to enlarge it at all, but if it will only enlarge in a new window - which our system uses for larger than our "recommended sizes" then fewer people will get the pleasure of enjoying them. :'(
-
Quote from: Lesley Cox on April 30, 2016, 11:38:07 PM
Perhaps someone can tell me why - in recent months many or most of the Forum's pictures enlarge for me in a new window, just one at a time and very slow loading. I can only see the one and have to close it before clicking on, then seeing the next. It is especially annoying when there are more than one or two pictures to view and for me, in many cases discourages me from bothering to enlarge. Pictures used to display (and some still do) the allowed 5 at a time, full size, and loading almost instantly. This way is useful for comparison and going back to, for another look. It takes a fraction of the time to view the old way as it does the new window way. How/why has this changed and is there any way it can be changed or reversed? Perhaps it seems like a minor issue for many but it's one of those many little things that frustrate and annoy computer users which, in time, make one want to throw the whole damn thing out the window. Sorry.
In response to those complaining that it was too difficult to resize photos to the forum recommended size, there is now an opportunity to have photos loaded at larger size - but these will only open one at a time in a new window - and probably, for some people, more slowly. For those who use the option to load photos in the text within the recommended sizes there is no such problem.
Once again, if forumists would adhere to our requests the system would work to a good level for all.
What we have here is a resource that is free and available to all- anyone can read these pages and learn from them. I do not deny that social media sites are very simple to use - photos can be loaded fast from a smart phone and without the need to resize them as needed here. However - this site is provided by a charitable organisation without the capacity to provide all the bells and whistles of these massive social media sites.
The benefit here is that information is stored for future use by anyone - I personally believe that this is a very valuable resource that makes it worthwhile to spend a little time resizing photos to the requirements of the forum, which mean that pictures are more easily viewable - we also have the capacity here for discussions to take place and information to be shared with the public in a way that is not possible elsewhere. It may be that in future no-one will be bothered about recording information for the benefit of others but meanwhile I am happy that there are those members who will take the time and effort to participate here for the wider benefit.
Yes, Lesley, it is a shame that there is a reluctance from some to resize to forum sizes - but perhaps at least this way they still do post - would the Web Team wish to have a system that would enable instant loading of pix, if that were possible without great expense etc? Yes, of course - but our main aim is to gather information as best we can and make it available to all- and we do what we can.
-
re-posted from another thread ......
Thank you Maggi for the comprehensive explanation about the re-sized (or not) pictures. Having read it, I agree with everything you say about the record of knowledge SRGC Forum provides, all searchable, and that things like Facebook fall down in this respect. Some wonderful pictures there but precious little information and if one goes back next day or the day after , what one wants is gone forever so far as I can see.
Having said all that, I wonder if some people have trouble re-sizing because of their software? With my now deceased PC I had a photo processing programme called Photofiltre which was excellent and re-sizing a photo took all of 5 seconds so no trouble at all. But my recently new laptop has a more sophisticated programme (and I'm not at all sophisticated) to do the same things and for the life of me I haven't yet found how to re-size. It's well-known that I'm almost illiterate when it comes to computers so I keep hoping a light will shine upon me some time soon and I'll work it out. In the time since I started using the laptop I have only posted pictured taken previously and already re-sized.
Lesley,I use Microsoft paint to resize.I'm not very good with computers,but it's very easy,plus if you google it,a simple tutorial comes up.
Not sure if this is the tutorial Philip means ... http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A7x9UkxsIydX_iUACot3Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByaDRqYzNhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1462211565/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.reading.ac.uk%2fweb%2ffiles%2fwww_File_Library%2fA_Guide_to_Microsoft_Paint_%28XP%29.pdf/RK=0/RS=QBSl10blUxOmMJt6Lzt0F6sQ0Fo- (http://r.search.yahoo.com/_ylt=A7x9UkxsIydX_iUACot3Bwx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByaDRqYzNhBHNlYwNzcgRwb3MDNgRjb2xvA2lyMgR2dGlkAw--/RV=2/RE=1462211565/RO=10/RU=http%3a%2f%2fwww.reading.ac.uk%2fweb%2ffiles%2fwww_File_Library%2fA_Guide_to_Microsoft_Paint_%28XP%29.pdf/RK=0/RS=QBSl10blUxOmMJt6Lzt0F6sQ0Fo-)
-
Lesley, bearing in mind what you have said about your own computer skills (and I'm sure you malign yourself!) you could do no better than download the SRGC re-sizing tool. This will sit on your desktop and all you will need to do is open the file(s) you keep your pictures in. Select the picture you want to resize and drag and drop it onto the re-sizing tool and in milliseconds it will have sent a re-sized picture of a size just ideal for Forum use back to the file you started with. It will have a new title that includes "SRGC" and a lot of hyphens but you can then choose to replace that by whatever title you want. I would tell you how to download the tool but I can't remember how, but a know a lady in Aberdeen who does.
All details of the photo resizing tool here : http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=9993.0 (http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=9993.0)
-
Problem with the srgc resizer. My Augustinii came out at the correct size but was 328 kb so my post bounced. How do I sort this ?
I had to go in to Photoshop to effect a reduction in pixels.
Not sure, Tom - perhaps a general resize to reduce MB from the original? Hard when so many cameras make such huge files these days.
-
There have been some problems for folks posting pictures from their i-pads or smart phones - these are appearing either sideways or upside down when loaded to the forum.
It 's a question of how the pix were first saved I think. Not sure, since I don't use an i-pad or camera phone, so I consulted Ian about this.
He says if the pix are flipped in the device or as you resize them ( to make them display the right way up as you see them) then they will rotate when posted here, back to the original orientation. If you don't flip them they'll be correct here in the first place.
-
A reminder about posting photos
the SRGC Forum has undergone some changes recently and if using the (attachimg=1) code ( " inline full-size image option" ) - with the square brackets (rather than the ones I've used to allow you to see without confusing the system with code) it is possible to attach larger photo sizes which will be automatically resized to the page and open in the text box.
These are the square brackets [ ]
8) 8)
This screengrab shows what a post will look like when this method is used to add photos in the text - using pretty much any device it seems, i-pad, smartphone, whatever!
[attachimg=1]
-
I've just tried another resizing method that I've known of but not tried before .... emailing the image to oneself. Just done this with a file over 3.69 MB and requested the 1024 x 628 option, clicked send and got a resized photo arrive, just 138kb which loads perfectly.
Actually much quicker than using the ACDSee programme I would ordinarily use to resize and useful if you find your files are really too large to load easily.
Have asked Fred Admin to look into question of tweaking time-out limits in case that is a factor in the problem one or two are reporting.
Method described in previous post working for most I'm glad to say.
-
I would post some photos if could, but apparently my files are always too big (sigh).
Oh dear, I do not know why you have this problem. I do occasionally have such a hiccup but by and large the system will post photos of just abut any size without "complaint". The other day I was posting pix from elsewhere for a member and I posted a whole string of large size images without bother. Suddenly the system decided to "change its mind" and baulked at any larger than 200kb. Irritating? Yes, but I used the simple resizing element I have on my ancient ACDSee programme and then loaded the pix as usual. It really didn't take very long and the end result is that the photos are there in the forum as a lasting record.
I am far from being a computer whizz and the programme I use for photo sizing etc is, in computer terms, almost antediluvian, so no fancy knowledge or equipment is needed.
As previously stated, it seems the best way to load photos is using the attachimg route = inline full size image
Of course, there will be internet connection changes/interruptions from time to time - depending on the service in a given area or time, and often these are so minimal as to pass un-noticed generally, but they do occur, I am reliably informed, so I do hope that people will not be deterred and will make that extra effort, should it be needed, to support the forum fully.
[attachimg=1]
Pic is 6.84 MB - posted without resizing