Author Topic: Photo file and Display Size abuse.. (Read 18002 times)

Editor · « **on:** May 13, 2006, 12:29:58 PM »

Folks;

I have been stewing over this for awhile and spending hours fixing these issues as they pop up. This is an unpaid job and consumes large blocks of time. This new guideline for photo posting will save the editorial staff time and will save low bandwidth users even more time. Right now, I have decided to implement this change. DanB may reverse my decision but until then here it is:

There has been a lot of posting here lately where folks post huge photos. Editors have been making them into links, removing them and trying to educate users on why it is not nice to do this.

The problem has gotten to epidemic proportions.

From today forward Any single photo posted in a story over about 100 KiloBytes in size will be stripped manually, continuing abuse will cause the story to be eliminated. No making it a link, no friendly reminders it will just be removed. Comments posted with large files attached will just be deleted, same thing for bypassing width attribute tags.

We have tried and tried to patiently educate folks but either some of you are too dumb, too lazy, don't care or are too stubborn to take the time to resize your photos so low bandwidth users can read the story without waiting an hour for photos to download.

No excuses. If you are unable to create decent size photos then learn how to create a link to the file and include that rather than the file.

None of this is hard at all and we still want to see your photos but there is absolutely no reason for you to post any photo much over 50 KiloBytes here. That is sufficient size to show enough detail. And for you Windows users the standard ".bmp" file type it creates is a very bad choice because it creates the worlds biggest files with the least information in them.

However, high quality, informative postings with a lot of photos will remain.

For the good of all.

Editor.

AbyssUnderground · « **Reply #1 on:** May 13, 2006, 06:48:37 AM »

Just to help people out on actually HOW to resize photos:

If you have Adobe Photoshop or similar program you can resize in the "image" menu to 640x480 pixels and then you can save with the "Save for Web" function. This will allow you to set the quality which affects file size by a very very large amount. 25% quality is usually more than enough.

If you use paint, then you will have problems because its very bad at resizing photos. Save as a "JPG" file for best quality and file size ratio.

Editor: Sorry if I shouldnt have posted that. Just giving a little advice.

Editor · « **Reply #2 on:** May 13, 2006, 06:56:49 AM »

Editor: Sorry if I shouldnt have posted that. Just giving a little advice.

Abyss;

actually, since I don't do much photo editing I appreciate the info. Exactly the responses I hoped for. Help is always good.

Not trying to make this some kind of punishment but trying to get folks to learn how to be more bandwidth friendly in here.

I hope more image savvy users post more ideas on how to make web friendly images.

Ed...

stop4stuff · « **Reply #3 on:** May 13, 2006, 07:13:02 AM »

I use Corel Photopaint to resize images to 475 pixels wide for this forum, and save using as a jpg with a compression factor of 40 giving a final image that's 22 to 29k in size.

Most digital cameras have a size/qaulity setting, the smallest usually 640x480.

To resize using Paint, click the 'Image' tab, then choose 'Stretch/skew' from the menu. Entering 25% for the horizontal & verticle stretching will reduce a 1632x1224 921k image down to 408x306 81k. Save the resized image as a jpg (JPEG)... unfortunately paint doesn't have any further compression options.

ghurd · « **Reply #4 on:** May 13, 2006, 07:14:08 AM »

I find very little change in photo quality between 10kb and 500kb.

Some may need a little more than 10kb, but many are just as good at 5kb.

Photos that start fuzzy and grainy gain nothing with more kb.

In my files, StprFlyStLouis jpg is 4.9kb. Looks just like it did at 5megs, fuzzy.

G-

Scotth · « **Reply #5 on:** May 13, 2006, 07:19:54 AM »

I too had problems with poster size pictures until someone on the board sent me a link to some awesome software that allows you to do just about anything to your photos,and it's pretty much idiot proof.Unfortunately,I have no idea how to attach that link to this posting.I believe it's called IrfanView???

ghurd · « **Reply #6 on:** May 13, 2006, 07:21:24 AM »

Paint images can be saved as a jpg, then opened in another program for resizing.

I find Paint handy for circuit diagrams, blueprints, etc.

G-

dalibor · « **Reply #7 on:** May 13, 2006, 07:53:21 AM »

yes it is irfan wiev - small freeware for resizing (and doing other things) with your photos. here is the link

http://www.irfanview.com/

on that site first goes this

...IrfanView is a very fast, small, compact and innovative FREEWARE (for non-commercial use) graphic viewer for Windows 9x/ME/NT/2000/XP/2003...

i am using it to resize my digital photos and it is so simple thing, no any deeper knowledge required.

hope this will help.

kurt · « **Reply #8 on:** May 13, 2006, 08:03:43 AM »

in my opinion a photo size of 450 pixels wide works best on this board. that comes out to 35 to 40 KB.

windyknight · « **Reply #9 on:** May 13, 2006, 08:06:27 AM »

had a look at site but didnt understand download options - which is the windows xp one please?

kurt · « **Reply #10 on:** May 13, 2006, 08:10:11 AM »

http://www.tucows.com/preview/194967

MaxT · « **Reply #11 on:** May 13, 2006, 08:36:45 AM »

I plead guilty. Sorry about that, did not know of the size limit. Will re-edit into links to my personal web areas.

Will not happen again.

MaxT

WXYZCIENCE · « **Reply #12 on:** May 13, 2006, 09:50:38 AM »

Photo Size is limited to 150K bytes.Please resize your photos before posting them, whether they on our server or yours. 640x480 is a good maximum size. If you post large images, it causes problems for other users who have slow internet connections and small screens. And you'll be able to fit more images in your directory on our server...the maximum photo directory size is 8 meg per user. EDITOR, you can change the line: 640x480 is a good maximum size. To :MAXIMUM SIZE 640x480 OR WE WILL DELETE THEM!! Please change it in the "How to Use The Board", WXYZCIENCE.

wooferhound · « **Reply #13 on:** May 13, 2006, 10:08:31 AM »

When I take photos for the board, I set the camera to 640x480 and then use the lowest quality of compression. The photos almost always come out naturally to 61k in file size.

vawtman · « **Reply #14 on:** May 13, 2006, 10:23:23 AM »

I remember having that problem awhile back.First time trying and no clue what I was doing.Im sure people dont oversize on purpose.

I wish I had a warning of some sort before posting at that time.

Good idea Joe

tecker · « **Reply #15 on:** May 13, 2006, 10:52:59 AM »

Ok I understand your problemo wilco

johnlm · « **Reply #16 on:** May 13, 2006, 10:56:33 AM »

I am glad the Editor(s) finally decided to do something about this. I have complained about massive pics probably 10 times including offering links to Irfanview etc. I think Wolfer has the simplest approach and that is to set your camera at 640X480 when taking pics to be uploaded to this board. But then again from seeing the writing quality of some of the posts I see I doubt some people know they can set their cameras to lower resolutions. On the flip side there are some posts that appear to have interesting information but when I see the pics are going to take 10 minutes to load I just skip over those posts. It also pisses me off when I go to alot of trouble to write a story with reasonable sized pics only to have someone attach a pic to my post that is very large and it screws up my pics (somehow streaches them to the size of the pic being added) and makes the whole story 200 to 300 characters wide. I hope the Editor(s) have a way of stopping that also. Rant Ended

Thanks Editor(s)

Johnlm

AbyssUnderground · « **Reply #17 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:11:23 AM »

I usually dont complain about large file sizes with me being on a fast connection, but very few people actually use a 56K dial up now so thats probably why.

A 1mb photo will take a long time on dial up and seconds on broadband.

You should get a poll together to see how many people actually use dial up that visit the site, then you can see if its actually worth complaining about.

My way of thinking is if people want to view large photos they'll get broadband. Thats the reason I got broadband to begin with.

wdyasq · « **Reply #18 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:35:14 AM »

Some do not have a choice -

Until reciently it was $1000 + $80 a month to go any faster than a 19.2K phone line here.

And - when one IS on dialup - or worse, some hemerriod will send you a 3MB email file that locks up your server. Your only option is to delete all your email and hope soemthing not important was attached.

On the other hand - you get no more detail than one can see on screen. And there is something called "coon sense". I think that is removed from broadband users.

"My way of thinking is if people want to view large photos they'll get broadband." - but, what if it just isn't available?

Ron

nanotech · « **Reply #19 on:** May 13, 2006, 11:56:12 AM »

For those using Paint, you can see the actual pixel size of the picture you're working on by using the drop-down menu "Image", then clicking on "Attributes". If the "pixels option is selected, you can see the actual size of the image.

If you then use the "Image" drop-down menu again, you can use the "Stetch/Skew" to change the size of the image to the percentage you want.

Then when you're done, use the "File" drop-down menu and select the "Save As" option. Type in your file name, then use the "Save as type" drop-down menu and select the "JPEG" option.

Voile'

I do have to admit that Paint fails in the fact that you cannot change the compression of the jpeg image and even using the above you still end up with huge file sizes.

http://www.boomspeed.com/bofh1968/windstuff/windmill1.JPG

That one's done to my specs and it's still 162Kb in size.....

And as for the broadband option, sometimes it just isn't available. For me to get anything decent for internet speeds, the only company to supply broadband around here charges $108.00 a month for 1Mb/512K. As it is I pay $29.95 for 128/64 which works out not much better than dial-up.

AbyssUnderground · « **Reply #20 on:** May 13, 2006, 12:23:36 PM »

I didnt realise some countries were still in the past in terms of internet speeds.

WXYZCIENCE · « **Reply #21 on:** May 13, 2006, 12:52:04 PM »

There are several ways to get around big pics I tried this approach (copied someone on this board). After the subject line I added " # of Pics " maybe I will add compression % also. May help. Joe

rotornuts · « **Reply #22 on:** May 13, 2006, 01:01:29 PM »

It's not the country that's in the past it's just hard here in North America to supply all the United States (9,631,418 km sq) and Canada (9,976,140 km sq) with high speed internet.

By contrast the entire continent of Europe is 10,390,000 km sq or just slightly larger than either Canada or the US.

Mike

wdyasq · « **Reply #23 on:** May 13, 2006, 01:42:21 PM »

Mike,

Was speaking to someone from OZ the other day. He commented his speed was limited to less than 2kbs. There were no other affordable options there. I am sure he had all pictures cut off and only read text. IIRC a fast reader can keep up with 1400bs or so...

Ron

2windy · « **Reply #24 on:** May 13, 2006, 01:57:37 PM »

Sorry,I am guilty as charged. Will take the time to resize next time or not post it, I have gooten way to much information from this board, so I do not want to abuse it. I forgot what it was like to have dial-up. Have DSL now.Again I'm very sorry.

inode buddha · « **Reply #25 on:** May 13, 2006, 02:01:09 PM »

FWIW most cameras have a setting for 640x480 or "web" or lo-resolution. Even at 2 megapixels, my cam keeps file size down to about 80k, but the "web" setting makes the files really tiny. I would educate and encourage everyone to explore your camera's settings and adjust accordingly. For what we are doing here, it's very rare that we need the detail level offered by huge files -- all we need are the general ideas offered by a snapshot.

My connection at home is fast enough that file size isn't an issue. It's not uncommon for me to move a few gigs of data per day. However, our hosts are presumably paying big money for their server and bandwidth consumed. It's only fair to try and make life easier for them.

Just IMHO, from a linux geek and mechanical/electrical tinkerer.

nanotech · « **Reply #26 on:** May 13, 2006, 02:13:53 PM »

Some countries?

Counties maybe, but hate to mention my zip code is 56754 in the good ole US of A

nanotech · « **Reply #27 on:** May 13, 2006, 02:26:45 PM »

Quote

our hosts are presumably paying big money for their server and bandwidth consumed.

Hence why I always try to host my pics myself.....

nothing to lose · « **Reply #28 on:** May 13, 2006, 02:30:30 PM »

As Ron said.

What if broadband is not available.

Think about it this way, people living in the cities may have tons of broadband options.

People living in the country have dialup and that's all!

Who is most likely most interested in putting up a large wind gennie on 10 acres? The guy in the city apartment or suburbs with a T1 connection or the guy in the country with a 33K dialup at best??

No for some of us satalite is not an option either!

I don't complain about the large file sizes, but with some posts with large pictures and lots of them I have to reload the page maybe 3-4 times before they all load. Seems it gets so far loading pics then just stops for some reason on some posts. So I end up skipping some pics I would like to see.

Large pics used to be a problem when I was using EI crap, but since I started using firefox they get resized most the time soit does not mess up the entire post as it used too.

nothing to lose · « **Reply #29 on:** May 13, 2006, 02:42:20 PM »

Learning to resize pics is something most camera users need to learn. Not just here but I see it everywhere. Most the talk in this post on the subject is taking smaller sized pics for the forum. BUT, remember some of those people may want the pictures for other uses also and then taking smaller pics is not the issue.

Like I have seen some pics here that would be great to print out as 8x10 color glossies, those need to be taken at a higher camera setting to be printed great than what is need for just posting online. So it becomes a mater of resize and scale them down for online posting after taking the pics.

I don't post many pics but I had problems getting them sized as I wanted for some I have uploaded.

MaxT · « **Reply #30 on:** May 13, 2006, 02:52:55 PM »

Whew. Ok, I have no removed huge files.

Since I used illustrations with limited colors, I noticed this: Photoshop - Save for web - .Gif - 16 colors - and size to fit in about 600 x 800 pixels or under. Much clearer than saving as .jpg. Does not seem to work for photos unfortunately.

Also the bigger pictures are now properly at another site in the web, and linked to my story.

Here is the fixed diary entry:

http://www.fieldlines.com/story/2006/5/13/203844/458

-------------

I really had no Idea I was committing an abuse, sorry about that. I only made the new diary entry, because this thread promised that all postings with bloated files will be removed today. I do not mean to flood, nor do I plan to do more stumbling the people's bandwidth.

Am I now doing this right ?

MaxT · « **Reply #31 on:** May 13, 2006, 03:00:53 PM »

That size and pixel width can change wildly with different formats and mounts of color. Apparently .Gif can pack diagrams with 16 colors tighter than .JPG and still be more precise and clear. Does not work in color photos. Using BW diagrams (1 bit if possible: only black and white, no grays-tones, except as a bw texturing) will fit even tighter than that.

MaxT · « **Reply #32 on:** May 13, 2006, 03:08:06 PM »

What is that about ? 640 x 480 color picture takes much more space than 800 x 600 picture with 16 colors, or 1200 x 2000 black and white diagram.

I just spent 4 hours resizing all my posting pictures to under 50k per piece. Will they now be wiped out anyway because they are over 640 x 480 ? Where's the point in that ? Pixel sizes do not correspond to picture size in kb. It seems that amount of colors used and compression (file format used, like .jpg or .gif) are much more significant factors in kb-sizes.

News:

Author Topic: Photo file and Display Size abuse.. (Read 18002 times)