Posts: 3,022
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
Should there me a maximum file size? Some of the pictures that are being posted here are FREEKIN HUGE!!!!! even with high speed internet it is taking forever to open some of these pictures. I size mine down to 800 x 600 and they are 1.3 meg opened and they open fast. One picture on another forum I opened was 3264 x 2448 and opened it was just under 23 meg.
When pictures are that big I tend to not look at them. What do you guys think? Ron
[signature]
Posts: 5,277
Threads: 0
Joined: Aug 2009
Reputation:
0
There is a max. files size on in the Idaho board rulesl
3. Keep pictures under 300k so that others can upload them quickly.
Not everyone is careful to watch what they post though, myself included.
[signature]
Posts: 3,326
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
0
How do you in line them . It does make for a better post . Thanks Curt G.
[signature]
Posts: 19,236
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
I can't do it on my Mac book, but on the PC is easy.
You do have to resize the picture first. The down load it like everyone does, but be sure and click "inline" box.
Then at the top of the message box, Up where the b u i is there is a little picture frame. Click on it, then select inline and the picture you downloaded should be there. click on it and there it is.
[signature]
Posts: 1,119
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
0
It also depends on the browser you are using. Google Chrome will not do it, IE will.
[signature]
Posts: 323
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
0
Use the image button:
[inline Image.jpg]
[signature]
Posts: 323
Threads: 0
Joined: Mar 2010
Reputation:
0
I wonder what is wrong with google chrome. It looks like it should work but then nothing shows up.
[signature]
Posts: 3,842
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
It would help if people kindly remind other people of the 300k rule. Let me tell you it takes time to put together a good report with pictures and when nobody gives feedback it makes you wonder if it is worth it.
I love posts that use the inline option. I choose not to do that because some people do not have their computers set up to see the pics when they are put in that way. I guess more people are becoming computer savy and most people now have high speed so I may change.
I tested how long it takes for my pics to come up (all under 300). It took between 5-7seconds to load each one. Idahorons took about 3-5seconds. So maybe I will make mine even a little smaller. Sometimes I like to look a little closer at a good quality picture so I don't want to go too small.
For now the 300k rule stands. The moderators will discuss it and maybe we will go with another rule if something works better.
Any constructive suggestions are welcome. We are all here to make the board as good as it can be.
Thanks
Windriver
[signature]
Posts: 3,326
Threads: 0
Joined: Feb 2008
Reputation:
0
Thanks for the reply's . Curt G.
[signature]
Posts: 1,282
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
I wish poeple would always use the picture frame and download the file to this forum. When they are linked from another site I cannot see them at work, which is where I do most of my forum reading.
[signature]
Posts: 19,236
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
I do use PHOTO BUCKET with my Mac because as I said, I don't have the IN LINE function.
But, after the last post I made where you couldn't see the pictures, I will try to do these picture reports from the PC.
[signature]
Posts: 1,287
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2009
Reputation:
0
I like the inline deal but can't do that on my MAC. I like when the pictures load fast but I also like a quality picture. I pick them apart looking for clues that the poster may not be giving up. Amazing what you can spot in the background. So posters beware I will be watching [bobhappy][bobhappy]
[signature]
Posts: 3,022
Threads: 0
Joined: Dec 2008
Reputation:
0
So if the picture takes more than 5 to 10 seconds we say something right? is that for all forums here? Thanks for helping out. Ron
[signature]
Posts: 3,842
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
Download speed really depends on internet provider speed and computer speed. So for right now if you see pics over 300K. Thank the person for posting but remind them of the 300k rule.
I will try to do better at reminding people. I just don't have time to go back and change peoples pics.
Windriver
[signature]
Posts: 1,119
Threads: 0
Joined: Apr 2008
Reputation:
0
Just something to think about. With my new Cannon camera which is 18 megapixels with a screen size of over 5000x3000 and a file size of 8-10 megs, 12-18 megs in RAW format, down sizing a pic that size to 300k or less will make it just about useless to post since it would be so small. This is 2010 and the technology age. I am not asking for 2+ megs in size, but 1m(1000K) would be nice. Even my cell phone will download a 1m pic in just a few seconds. I think it is time for an update to the rule.
[signature]
Posts: 3,842
Threads: 0
Joined: Jun 2003
Reputation:
0
Good Point. Maybe we should go with a pixel size instead.
Windriver
[signature]
Posts: 19,236
Threads: 2
Joined: Nov 2005
Reputation:
1
The rule has been 400 pixel, but I have posted 500.
[signature]
Posts: 1,282
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
Here's one for a test. It's 3264 x 2448, 1.34MB. How long does it take to view? Let find out.
[inline bear2.JPG]
[signature]
Posts: 1,282
Threads: 0
Joined: Jul 2008
Reputation:
0
That takes less than 2 seconds to come up for me.
[signature]
]