[Edited on 12-29-2010 by bigzaggin]bigzaggin - 12-29-2010 at 11:01 AM
Also, does anyone know why using the [img] & [/img] BB code wouldn't work with a .me site?David K - 12-29-2010 at 11:17 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bigzaggin
Also, does anyone know why using the [img] & [/img] BB code wouldn't work with a .me site?
Yes... because that is not an image (photograph)!bigzaggin - 12-29-2010 at 11:34 AM
How is it not an image? Those who use photobucket are simply bracketing the LINK to their posted images with the img BB code correct? Shouldn't
other hosting sites work accordingly?mcfez - 12-29-2010 at 11:38 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bigzaggin
Can't wait to see this again...
Nice orange tones tooDavid K - 12-29-2010 at 11:40 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by bigzaggin
How is it not an image? Those who use photobucket are simply bracketing the LINK to their posted images with the img BB code correct? Shouldn't
other hosting sites work accordingly?
Well, I clicked on your link and I waited a long time for it to load... and it was showing me it was a video clip loading... If it wasn't, then try a
better site to host and upload your photos (photobucket.com). The [img] code is for single photos/ images... and please pre-size them to be 800 pixels
or less when you upload from your PC to the image hosting site.
The image url you tried to link doesn't have the correct .jpg or other code at the end.
[Edited on 12-29-2010 by David K]DianaT - 12-29-2010 at 11:49 AM
Your photo is absolutely beautiful! Opened beautifully, but would like to see it here.
OK, you have inserted a link to the site---don't know if the site you are using has what photobucket has.
Under each photo there are four choices of things to copy, and one of them in the IMAGE code and that is what one copies and pastes here to have the
picture show directly on the forum .
Here is what a photo looks like on photoshop with the codes underneath
Notice that the information is enclosed by image tags---so one clicks on the image tag which copies it and then pastes the code here
Check to see if your storage site has automatic image codes.
Again, that is an amazing photo---the light is just wonderful and truly golden.
Good luck---and warning, photobucket does mess with the quality of photos---so while I find it FAR from the best, it is the easiest.
[Edited on 12-29-2010 by DianaT]David K - 12-29-2010 at 11:50 AM
Nice job Dianabigzaggin - 12-29-2010 at 12:31 PM
Thank you Diana. I'm determined to sort this out with a Mac w/o using an external site. Maybe I can do it via Lightroom. I'll get it soon and flood
this site with Baja sunrise/set images...been collecting them for years.
I also have heaps of pics featuring my Tundra hopelessly buried in mud. Those are always fun.DianaT - 12-29-2010 at 12:58 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by bigzaggin
Thank you Diana. I'm determined to sort this out with a Mac w/o using an external site. Maybe I can do it via Lightroom. I'll get it soon and flood
this site with Baja sunrise/set images...been collecting them for years.
I also have heaps of pics featuring my Tundra hopelessly buried in mud. Those are always fun.
There are instructions posted at the top of the photo forum as to how to post directly from your computer to the forum. HOWEVER, you need to reduce
your photos to 50k-----
Hope you can find another way. I understand your feelings about external photo storage, but I do hope to see your photos at larger than 50k!
Good Luck!David K - 12-29-2010 at 02:56 PM
It actually has to be LESS than 50 kb (49.9 or less), but that doesn't mean the photo is tiny... just the file size if Nomad is going to host it here.
However, using photobucket.com is sure a breeze with the automatic PIXEL re-sizer... 800 pixels or less in width will not distort the page.willyAirstream - 12-29-2010 at 03:14 PM
Here is your image. Leave off the characters after the jpg in the url. In this case it was "?ver=1234345 " or something close. and for future
reference 800 px wide is the prefered image size.
[Edited on 12-29-2010 by willyAirstream]
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by BajaNomad]David K - 12-29-2010 at 03:16 PM
Nice, but at 1,024 pixels wide it exceeds the 800 pixel page width... Just wanting to help...sanquintinsince73 - 12-29-2010 at 03:16 PM
Wow!!!!! Nice, Willy.David K - 12-29-2010 at 03:24 PM
Edit: As BajaNomad has resized Willy's photo to 800 pixels, no need to use my re-sized example here.
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by David K]David K - 12-29-2010 at 03:27 PM
Anyway, just an offer... to comply with Doug's request and so the 15" monitor folks don't have to scroll to the right for every reply in the thread.DianaT - 12-29-2010 at 03:32 PM
DON"T use photobucket to do your resizing---as you can see, DavidK took your picture and put in on his photobucket site and it appears he resized it
there--
and using photobucket for that significantly reduces the quality of the photo. Overall, photobucket is not good for photos ---- I use it to store,
but don't like it. And resizing with photobucket--well, you see the results. OK, I guess, for snapshots, but...........
Your photo is too good to mess up that way---Besides the quality, your photo is also more dramatic larger, but most have given in to the people with
the small screens and do resize to 800 wide. But use your own software and the quality will not be so damaged.
I am really curious as to where that photo is stored and I would like to understand what Willy is saying?
[Edited on 12-29-2010 by DianaT]willyAirstream - 12-29-2010 at 04:06 PM
DianaT and bigzaggin , that photo by bigzaggin is stored at
You can go to the second link above, right click and "view photo" which will give you the link to the photo, with the extra code "?ver=12936452450001"
delete the ?ver=12936452450001 and you will have a direct link to the pic, for use here with the BB Code.
I didn't bother resizing, {sorry to folks with small resolution screens}( monitor size doesn't come into the equation)
The best way to resize and optimize a pic is manually, using photoshop, fireworks or the open source Gimp software. Relying on a wizard or photobucket
is hit or miss. Trial and error with good software is quick and will give you better results.
I hope that is clear, if not, holler.
btw, web space is cheap. You can have your own url to store your photos with out needing a web site, just one page for each pic. ( and you could turn
it into a website or a blog in the future)
hthbigzaggin - 12-29-2010 at 04:38 PM
[Edited on 12-29-2010 by bigzaggin]
[Edited on 12-29-2010 by bigzaggin]
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by BajaNomad]bigzaggin - 12-29-2010 at 04:41 PM
SUCCESS!!!!
THANK YOU WILLY!!!!David K - 12-29-2010 at 05:01 PM
Yes, but it is also 1,024 pixels wide.
Is there a way that you can re-size or upload the image to 800 pixels other than Photobucket? That you can explain here for anyone to do?
Edit: BajaNomad to the rescue again... Photo re-sized.
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by David K]
Super picture I say agan....
mcfez - 12-29-2010 at 05:12 PM
This is for that fly on your screen to see...
willyAirstream - 12-29-2010 at 06:58 PM
Your welcome bigzaggin!
David, did you mean me? All image editing software is similar. Since I forgot to bring my Adobe suite software, I'm using open source free software
and loving it. For photos and raster images ( bitmaps - jpg, png, tiff etc) I use Gimp
available for free here http://www.gimp.org/downloads/
Basically you resize your image, then either save it or export it as a jpg and set the compression. For a simple image, like the fly, you can use a
highly compressed image ( like 20) and reduce the file size by about 80%. The girls pic example shows that a compression of 80 is almost as good as
the original, while the file size went from 755k to 60k. And below 80 the pic really breaks up. Always work with a copy of your original and remember
that an original image can only be compressed once as doing it more will drastically reduce the quality and weird things happen to the image. There
are tons of video tutorials available for Gimp and other open source software. If someone needs a step by step on the above, I'll be glad to do it. tripledigitken - 12-29-2010 at 07:40 PM
Lencho,
The issue of 800 pixel width was discussed recently. See Doug's post here.........
the content table cell is liquid at 82%, which is 839 px wide at 1024 resolution, so allowing for side bars, 800px wide pics works fine. The forum
format is not a fixed width. The tables are all coded as percentages of the users screen resolution. ( the header and footer are a fixed width)David K - 12-29-2010 at 10:18 PM
I used the 800 number because any image posted wider than that distorts the entire thread for folks with standard monitors...
Yes, Doug would like it even smaller... but, if we can't help the few Nomads who repeatedly post images of over 1,000 pixels wide to get down to AT
LEAST 800... How are we going to get them to go to where you want?
I am just trying to make it easy... and Photobucket has been the easiest I have tried, so far... I am open to try others.tripledigitken - 12-29-2010 at 11:14 PM
I have posted my photos for 4 years, hundreds of them, all at 800 pixels in width with nary a complaint.
What's the issue if Doug himself said 800 width is acceptable?
BajaNomad - 12-30-2010 at 07:04 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by lencho
Doug, have you considered widening the forum template?
I have - but there's a "catch 22" - by widening the template to allow for higher resolution photos to not "break" the width, it makes it a wider
"column" for the text (as a default) also. The wider column is not as "user friendly" to read (well, unless I enlarge the text/font size I imagine).
The newer XMB software releases have thumbnails for attachments - but I have not yet determined how much I can alter the size of the thumbnail images
(if at all).
Also - an fyi for the thread - one can use "advanced" [ img ] tag settings to resize an image. I think bigzaggin's images were 1024x567 - and I
resized them to 800x450 (proportional WxH) just by using [ img=800x450 ].
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by BajaNomad]mcfez - 12-30-2010 at 08:38 AM
willyAirstream
Are those the actually size of flies in Baja?willyAirstream - 12-30-2010 at 09:20 AM
mcfez
I was expecting comments about the girls , No, the flies are from Sacramento .
DianaT - 12-30-2010 at 09:30 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by willyAirstream
mcfez
I was expecting comments about the girls , No, the flies are from Sacramento .
Well, they are lovely young ladies! I might disagree however about the original compression being almost as good---may be acceptable, but the quality
is quite compromised, I think.
But they are still lovely in the more reduced photo even though the photo now looks awful! bigzaggin - 12-30-2010 at 09:31 AM
Regarding formatting, my camera shoots in 16x9 native. If I resize to 800 x 450, will that compromise aspect ratio?
And as for your picture Willy, I thought it was a trap and any comment on the girls would be met with a swift "One more word about my daughters and
someone dies."bigzaggin - 12-30-2010 at 10:14 AM
Here's a test using "shrinkdown" BB code...
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by bigzaggin]
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by bigzaggin]
[Edited on 12-30-2010 by bigzaggin]bigzaggin - 12-30-2010 at 10:18 AM
took me a few tries - I guess the [800 x 450] only goes at the head of the post. For some reason, image looks less than spectacular now. Might try
doing the compression on my own.David K - 12-30-2010 at 10:26 AM
That's a beautiful photo... on a message board... For premium photo viewing, a link to your photo web site would be best... have it at max. resolution
there.David K - 12-30-2010 at 11:13 AM
Larry, wouldn't you agree that using a message board for anything more than casual viewing of photos is asking a lot? Wouldn't a link to a photo
hosting site be a better way to show your photos IF you wanted people to see them at their best?
A 800 or less pixel image on Nomad followed by a link to the photo site where it is at it's maximum size would be a way for a photographer to best
display his 'art' online, yes?
