[FlyGal]

I'm aware now that this site requires a specific size photo, though I resize most of my images for a number of forums, this forum requires smaller images, it's hard to accommodate all and it has been my experience much is lost with images smaller than 640 x 480.

Does the above photo rules also apply to images being hosted by a third party company (photobucket) like mine are which take up no disk space at the forum's webhosting or putting pressure on the bandwith at the forum server?

Also 640 x 280 is a non standard size for a digital image and if anyone plugs in those numbers to resize an image they would end up with a normal width but squat image height wise that would be distorted. Digital has size standards much like 35mm with 4x5, 5x7, 8x10 and so on - change those standards and you get a distorted image.

Thank you for your time, Nome

[Frank Whiton]

Hi Nome,

I thought this was important enough to make it a new thread. The photo size limits are set by the site owner. I will ask him to take a look at your post.

Frank

[Fish Bones]

NAFFF has a unique situation that is different from many other forums. This forum allows the first post of a new thread to be visible on the center column of the home page. As you can see, it allows for the thread body, including text and the images, to be seen on the home page. When someone posts a huge photo in the first post of a new thread... it blows the home page out of proportion. The center column on the home page is designed to contain photos that area about 600pxls wide. Wider photos will stretch the center column and force the right side of the page to go off of the screen for most resolution settings. The larger the photo the more the home page is distorted.

It is my responsibility to maintain good aesthetics on the home page. First time visitors to a forum can be easily turned off by a website that appear to be unorganized or have a poor visual appeal.

So, the image size limit has been more about cosmetics than storage issues.

Now... I realize this has been a problem with some folks and several have taken issue with the image size limitations. I am sensitive to your concerns. So, I have been strongly considering other options. However, all of the options include only having the title of new threads on the home page and not part of the text and photos. So, visitors viewing the home page will only see thread titles and no part of the body. I could then eliminate image size restrictions.

So, within time... this will no longer be an issue. I look forward to any thoughts an ideas you may have.

[FlyGal]

Thank you for the response Steve, I completely understand frame blowouts with larger than column width images.

Can you enable thumbnails to appear on the home page rather than full size images?

[Frank Whiton]

Hi Steve,

Thanks for your very informative response. I think everyone better understands the problem with real large photos.

It is true that 640 X 480 is a somewhat standard photo on the Internet with sites like photo bucket. It is also true that other sites use a smaller standard. Some of the problem is those who have pictures on Photo Bucket or similar sites, don't want to go to the extra effort to resize their photos before posting. This problem can be avoided if people would up load their resized photo to the NAFFF Photo Gallery from their computer. I have many photos on my computer that have several copies with different sizes.

I am not sure if changing the home page is a good way to go. It is true that if a post has many photos it can push other post in the center quite far down the page. So in this case we get a different type of blowing the home page. We all know what happens when a photo that is too wide is posted. If you post just titles in the center it solves lots of problems but the site won't be as dynamic for the viewer. NAFFF is a great looking site and we don't want to change that unless it is the best solution. I wonder if you could increase the size of the photo limit to a size that doesn't blow out the home page but is larger than what we now have?

What ever you decide to do I am sure the good members of NAFFF will do their best to meet the needs and requirements of the site. I am also sure everyone understands that you have to do what is in the best interest of NAFFF. I hope the members will give you some feedback about how they feel on this subject.

Frank

[Fly2Fish]

Frank, I agree with you that the "look" of the NAFFF Forum is really nice, and I'd hate for that to change. I wasn't aware of the fact that uploading to the NAFFF Photo Gallery helps the process of bringing in pictures to the Forum (which I've had problems with also, so gave up).

Neil

P.S. Assume that the requested "feedback" given here will be seen by Steve & that I don't need to post elsewhere.

[wfosborn]

Hello,

I'd have to agree with Frank on the homepage, it's a great front page and that's why I have it set as my browser startup page.

On the image size issue, my vote on the size limit would be something like 550x413 (assuming I did my math right) - where I can easily scale down a standard image to make it fit without blowing out the page or distorting my picture. That may make the vertical length problem worse with some posts, but it would make it much easier to upload most digital pictures and could lead to more visual posts.

Having said all that, after re-reading the rules that Frank posted about image sizes a while back, if I have my images on another server in that size and link to them it appears it would work fine, just so long as I don't attach them. If that's correct then I guess I don't really have a problem with how it is setup now.

Let me end with a question, is there a command to insert and resize images as they are linked like you can in HTML?

--W

[FlyGal]

with the test photo put up which is 800 x 600 and the fact that your center column is fluid, I don't think it breaks your home page format.

Can anyone else see a problem with the home page and current large image on it?

[Frank Whiton]

Hi to all,

The NAFFF Gallery helps by allowing you to upload your photos from your computer. I think we all have a photo sizer on our computer of some type. You simply resize the photo to the correct size and give it a name. Then go to your NAFFF photo gallery and select "Upload". An "Upload File" window will open that allows you to browse your computer and locate your picture. You can enter the picture's address or click on "Browse". When you click on "Browse" the NAFFF software will take you to "My Pictures" on your computer. Locate your photo and click on it. The picture will then be listed on the Upload File window next to the "Browse" button. You can upload 5 pictures at a time. After your picture selection is done, click on "Submit" at the bottom of the page and the pictures you selected will be uploaded to the NAFFF Gallery. You can then copy or insert the photo from the Gallery to your post.

Yes, I am sure Steve is tracking this thread.

[Frank Whiton]

Hi to all,

My comments are mine as a member of the forum, not as a moderator. I am not speaking for Steve.

FlyGal, yes I see an 800 X 600 as a problem because it is too large. If you put multiple photos in the same post the Home Page will be pushed way down on the page. If two or three posters do multiple pictures at the same time then the home page would be way, way down. While it doesn't blow the page sideways, we will start to use up a lot of storage with pictures of that size. This is a free forum and when the server is full, it is Steve who has to come up with the money to expand. There is no need to have pictures of this size. We can get good detail with smaller pictures.

Microsoft considers the 640 X 480 as a large format for the Internet. They consider the 448 X 336 as a small format for the Internet. I think the 800 X 600 is too large to even consider. I would be happy with the 448 X 336 for my pictures. It still allows good detail and doesn't cause some of the problems that the larger pictures do. The Microsoft Office Picture Manger resizes to 448 X 336 very easily. I find it to be a very good program to resize pictures. Much easier than Adobe Photo Shop if you use a standard picture size.

I posted these photos using the NAFFF Gallery.

Frank

Here is a 448 X 336 Test Photo


Here is a 640 X 480 Test Photo


Here is the 800 X 600 Test Photo