Viewing and Posting pictures on the Forum

[Maggi Young]

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!

[Maggi Young]

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.

[Maggi Young]

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.
 

[Maggi Young]

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. 

[Maggi Young]

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 

[Maggi Young]

Another  helpful suggestion from Mike Ireland, who has forgotten more about photography than I'll ever know! 

I use a program called TinyPic, 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

[admin]

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.

[Maggi Young]

Thank you Fred - what would we do without you?

[Maggi Young]

    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.

[Maggi Young]

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. 

[Maggi Young]

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 :
[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[Jupiter]

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.

[Jupiter]

For instance these two pictures which I made the same physical size, 900 x 600 pixels

[Maggi Young]

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. 

[Maggi Young]

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.