Photos on the Website

[Gerry Webster]

What is happening? Why all these enormous (& wasteful?) photos  rather than the old-style expandable thumbnails? Why photos that look like expandable thumbnails & do indeed expand but won't close (as in 'Winter Narcissus')?

[Maggi Young]

It is true that some forumists do not adhere to the suggested size of a  maximum width  of 760 pixels for photos - 800 pixels  wide is a common  size used for resizing and,  generally speaking, the odd photo of that size is not a problem.

 Photos which are substantially larger than that are  more of a nuisance -  and I reiterate the plea to all posters to reduce their picture sizes to the referred maximum.

There is a choice for posters to use  either thumbnails or  full size pictures.

 Looking at some of the recent photos in the winter narcissus thread I cannot see  that there is a problem with  closing expanded photos - if the picture opens in a full page then one need only  click the "back" button at the top lefthand side of the page to return to the last forum page  viewed.

[Brian Ellis]

Good Lord, I hadn't realised that 760 is the maximum width - I had assumed it was just the maximum of one dimension!  You live and (hopefully) learn

[Gerry Webster]

 Looking at some of the recent photos in the winter narcissus thread I cannot see  that there is a problem with  closing expanded photos - if the picture opens in a full page then one need only  click the "back" button at the top lefthand side of the page to return to the last forum page  viewed.

Maggi - True enough & not a major problem. But the old-style expandable thumbnails can be closed by simply clicking on the expanded version.

I know nothing about web pages but aren't 'permanent' enormous pictures a waste of web space?

[Maggi Young]

Maggi - True enough & not a major problem. But the old-style expandable thumbnails can be closed by simply clicking on the expanded version.

I know nothing about web pages but aren't 'permanent' enormous pictures a waste of web space?

 And "new" thumbnails that are loaded at the end of the posts, rather than in the text box, still close in the same way.
 Either way, there's one click to restore the status quo.


I am told ( for such things are not my forte )  that since the whole photo is loaded to the site there is no saving to the Forum's storage facility  from a thumbnail as regards the expanded version.

[Steve Garvie]

My posted images are hosted on a Flickr account and are hot linked to the forum text by using the [img] [img] function. I had assumed that this would avoid using up forum storage space ......or is this assumption wrong?

[Maggi Young]

Yes, that's right Steve- your photos are not taking up any "SRGC space".

We have had problems in the past, though, when photos had been loaded via Photobucket, for instance,   when after a time the photos disappeared for whatever reason, so we're left with a post missing its illustrations.  So we were wary of that type of upload.

[Carlo]

Seems to me there was a lovely little widget offered hereabouts that one could download and then drag photos to for automatic resizing suitable for the forum....

It's a nice little piece of kit and I've used it to downsize for other online uses as well.

Perhaps a reference to it would help with this issue?

[Maggi Young]

Widget is a "drag and drop resizing tool "  see more here :
http://www.srgc.net/forum/index.php?topic=9993.0

[Gerry Webster]

I understand this widget will not work on Macs. Photos can be reduced to 600 pixels with Apple's iPhoto -  it is very easy to use.