BajaNomad

BEFORE YOU UPLOAD PHOTOS FOR NOMAD POSTING:

David K - 8-23-2012 at 09:21 PM

Please reduce them so as not to distort this forum's pages.

Here is how to post a photo on Nomad (or many):

You can put pictures on Nomad from any other site using the IMG tags on each side of the image url [img] and [/img]. The photo hosting site will usually provide you with a link for direct posting on forums.

HERE is my Photobucket how to:

For Nomads who have been posting too big photos on Nomad... Doug has asked (and those with standard 15" monitors appreciate) to limit the pixel width to a max. of 800.

The sizing is done when you upload photos TO Photobucket from your PC. So, if you didn't do that already... and they are at the full size setting, they will stretch the Nomad pages wide (on normal monitors).

How to resize them with Photobucket, on your album page:

1) Click the red button 'UPLOAD' at the top of the Photobucket page.

2) At the top of the Upload box that appears, see (in small blue text): 'Customize your upload options', and click that.

3) Choose a reduced size. 640x480 is nice for most photos. I usually only go to the 800x600 size for maps for max. detail on Nomad.

4) At the bottom, click 'SAVE'! Thats it!!!

Now, until you change that setting, all photos will be uploaded to Photobucket at whatever reduced size you picked!

To post your photos on Nomad, use your mouse and copy the link called 'IMG Code', below the photo you want to show... and paste it onto Nomad where you type in your text... You can post several photos at a time, but I suggest not more than a dozen, and double space between each phot link. Specially if you add some captions under each photo.

norte - 8-24-2012 at 07:44 AM

Someone elses opinion.

A List of Display Sizes (Desktop Computers)

640x480 The standard monitor size in the mid-1990s. Almost no one designs for a display this small any more.

800x600 According to some surveys, less than 5% of users have monitors this small. But many designers still make their designs to accomodate this size.

1024x768 Currently the "standard" display size. Most designers create their designs with this in mind as their primary size.

1280x1024 Larger than the current "standard" size, but many users view their Web pages in this display size.

1600x1200 A significant number of users have displays this large.1900x1220

Now we're getting into the high end of display sizes. Most designers don't design for displays this large, unless they're creating "fluid" layouts (see below). If you create a fixed design for a display this large, almost everyone has to horizontally scroll to see your content.
Larger display sizes "Vanity" displays, big-screen televisions, and so forth.


http://www.iraqtimeline.com/maxdesign/basicdesign/principles...

David K - 8-24-2012 at 09:26 AM

Norte, Nomad is not the latest software user and many of us still have 15" monitors. The standard (as you say) 1024 pixel is not, here at least... Doug has posted to please not exceed 800 pixels when hot-linking photos here.

A 640 pixel wide photo is plenty big and does not distort the page or text... that was the size I used for the hundreds of photos in my trip report, and the maps were at the max. of 800 pixels.

Anyway, Doug has asked, and I am just helping explain how to do it.

norte - 8-24-2012 at 10:09 AM

Whatever. Its not as I say...But what the web designers say (gave you the link). If Doug has asked, fine. Just bringing new info to the board. Guess you are a five percent-er. That may be special!

BajaNomad - 8-24-2012 at 02:53 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by norte
...what the web designers say (gave you the link).


That's just one web designer. In Iraq?

Many other web designers will advise more about considering one's own specific audience, than just worrying about what may be the "standard".
Quote:
five percent-er.


See attachment. More than 1-in-5 visitors here (stats are from all of 2012) may need to scroll the screen to see pics that are 1024 or wider in resolution - even those with 1024 screen resolution width, as there's the additional column width of info to take into consideration as well.

800 pixel width images work great for the audience here - as well as push the 728 pixel width of the forum out very little, which also aids readability of the text - which goes wide if an image does.

:biggrin:






[Edited on 8-24-2012 by BajaNomad]

bn_resolutions_2012.png - 8kB

norte - 8-24-2012 at 03:23 PM

Ouch. sorry I stepped on your toes.

On edit,

feeling guilty I checked via google on what the standard for display resolution is. I don't think I need to tell you that display resolutions way exceed the 800 pixel wide standard you have set for yourself. But it your forum and not one that is public. I understand that and I quickly felt the hot blade of criticism that was well aimed.

[Edited on 8-24-2012 by norte]

David K - 8-24-2012 at 05:18 PM

Well I hope we all want the same thing : to read and view Baja Nomad best. I only want to help achieve that. Have a great weekend!

Mulegena - 8-24-2012 at 06:00 PM

Excellent instructions, DavidK.

Perhaps I'll begin posting some Baja photos now!

BajaNomad - 8-24-2012 at 08:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by norte
I quickly felt the hot blade of criticism that was well aimed.


Just attempting to add clarification.

No pain intended. Have a great weekend.











[Edited on 8-25-2012 by BajaNomad]

Skipjack Joe - 8-25-2012 at 12:00 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaNomad


See attachment. More than 1-in-5 visitors here (stats are from all of 2012) may need to scroll the screen to see pics that are 1024 or wider in resolution - even those with 1024 screen resolution width, as there's the additional column width of info to take into consideration as well.



I come up with less than 1-in-8.

The attachment is represents about 72% of usage. Perhaps the numbers could be even smaller with a greater representation.

Regardless of how nomad likes them the original files should never be replaced with a downsized version. As technology advances the standard will keep changing and old images will look insignificantly smaller to the viewer. We all have images from just 10 years ago that now look like postage stamps.

BajaNomad - 8-25-2012 at 02:17 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

I come up with less than 1-in-8.



11.05%
+ 5.18%
+ 2.25%
+ 1.67%
+ 1.47%
--------
= 21.62% total


20% is 1-in-5. 25% would be 1-in-4.


Quote:
The attachment is represents about 72% of usage. Perhaps the numbers could be even smaller with a greater representation.


In finding additional resolutions that were 1024 or less in width, you could only add more upon the 21.62% figure, not subtract from it. In other words, the # would only get larger if I was to drill deeper into the more obscure resolutions noted in the stats, not get smaller.
Quote:
Regardless of how nomad likes them the original files should never be replaced with a downsized version. As technology advances the standard will keep changing and old images will look insignificantly smaller to the viewer. We all have images from just 10 years ago that now look like postage stamps.


:o

Pretty much all full-resolution images taken with a modern digital camera will need to be "downsized" for use here (and most anywhere on the web still). 800 pixel width images will still be relevant 10 years from now. Even the first consumer digital camera (the Casio QV-10), took images that were 320x240 - this is back in 1995, 17 years ago - which, while much "smaller", is not entirely insignificant:



http://japanese.lingualift.com/blog/casio-qv-10-digital-came...

If people were to post non-downsized images here, it wouldn't go over too well, as all the posts would look something like this one:

http://forums.bajanomad.com/viewthread.php?tid=62044

We may need to agree to disagree I suppose.

[Edited on 8-25-2012 by BajaNomad]

ELINVESTIG8R - 8-25-2012 at 06:01 AM

Skipjack Joe - 8-25-2012 at 07:24 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by BajaNomad
Quote:
Originally posted by Skipjack Joe

I come up with less than 1-in-8.



11.05%
+ 5.18%
+ 2.25%
+ 1.67%
+ 1.47%
--------
= 21.62% total


20% is 1-in-5. 25% would be 1-in-4.


Quote:
The attachment is represents about 72% of usage. Perhaps the numbers could be even smaller with a greater representation.


In finding additional resolutions that were 1024 or less in width, you could only add more upon the 21.62% figure, not subtract from it. In other words, the # would only get larger if I was to drill deeper into the more obscure resolutions noted in the stats, not get smaller.
Quote:
Regardless of how nomad likes them the original files should never be replaced with a downsized version. As technology advances the standard will keep changing and old images will look insignificantly smaller to the viewer. We all have images from just 10 years ago that now look like postage stamps.


:o

Pretty much all full-resolution images taken with a modern digital camera will need to be "downsized" for use here (and most anywhere on the web still). 800 pixel width images will still be relevant 10 years from now. Even the first consumer digital camera (the Casio QV-10), took images that were 320x240 - this is back in 1995, 17 years ago - which, while much "smaller", is not entirely insignificant:



http://japanese.lingualift.com/blog/casio-qv-10-digital-came...

If people were to post non-downsized images here, it wouldn't go over too well, as all the posts would look something like this one:

http://forums.bajanomad.com/viewthread.php?tid=62044

We may need to agree to disagree I suppose.

[Edited on 8-25-2012 by BajaNomad]


I didn't include the 1024 category. Since you're requesting an 800 pixel resolution I saw no reason to include a 1024 category.

As the sample size got larger I may fine more occurences of <1024 but we are talking about percentage here. (# of <1024 / all occurences. You used numbers based on 72% of occurences.

And yes, a landscape should never be shown at that size. It's now a snapshot. If your 1995 image that you carefully composed was intended to be a snapshot then there is satisfaction.

[Edited on 8-25-2012 by Skipjack Joe]