# Why can't I post a message board size pics. any more?



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

I can't post message board pics. any more on photobucket. I used to, but it won't allow me any more. It say's they are to wide. Does anyone know why?


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

I hear ya. I was so excited to finally get my first report up on this forum and once I was finally ready to post with pics, I hit submit and the error message showed up that said my pics were too wide.

Talk about a pain! I had to delete all my pics from Photobucket because they were already uploaded at 800 x 600 and the only other option was to go waaaay too small. So I had to delete them all (17 pics) and then copy them over from my "fishing" folder to my "edit" folder (I edit beforehand) and then resize to the 560 x 420, then upload to Photobucket again, then paste over my old IMG codes in the post-in-progress. 

By the time all that was taken care of, I hit submit and couldn't post because I'd been automatically logged out because it took so long. :lol: My whole post was gone once I logged back in and reverted to the previous screen, but luckily, I clicked the back arrow a few times and it put me back to the screen that had my report on it and showed my as "logged in".

Whew! Now that I know the idiosyncrasies of this particular forum, it's a bit smoother. I really wish we could post larger pics, though. There's plenty of room on the screen for 800 x 600 (message board) size.

Maybe there's something the admins can do about it, but if not, that's what we're stuck with.


----------



## .45 (Sep 21, 2007)

fixed blade said:


> I can't post message board pics. any more on photobucket. I used to, but it won't allow me any more. It say's they are to wide. Does anyone know why?


Several ( hundred ) members and myself voted to restrict the size on the image you can post due to your disgusting avatar..... :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :mrgreen: :lol:


----------



## DeadI (Sep 12, 2007)

just trying a pic to see.


----------



## DeadI (Sep 12, 2007)

that one worked but i think it might have been smaller that message board size let me try another.

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

I just tried another at message board size and it wouldn't let me.
I usually just use a 640 X 480 size anyways though.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

I vote to go to message board, if you want .45 I'll post my avatar in message board so's that ya can see it better.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

LOAH said:


> I really wish we could post larger pics, though. There's plenty of room on the screen for 800 x 600 (message board) size.


Here are the reasoning for restricting photo size:

1. According to the server stats, just over 11 percent of the people accessing the board are using monitors 800 pixels wide or narrower. By the time the scroll bars, spacers, avatar column and the left-hand nav column are taken into consideration, there about 500 and some odd pixels of horizontal screen real estate left over for these people to view whatever is loaded into the board.

2. About 26 percent of those visiting the forum are coming in via a dial-up connection. Very frequently, those big photos weigh in at close to a megabyte, and I've seen them as high as 3 megabytes. For someone with a 56K dial-up connection, it takes about 5 minutes just to call up a page with that much data on it. And when we have someone attach 5 or 6 photos in a single post, we're talking about around a half an hour of waiting time for that person still using a modem.

Given that we're restricting photos to serve a minority of the users here, I'd be inclined to change the photo upload parameters, but making things efficient on the Web is all about download speed. There seems insufficient reason for someone to post a giant-sized photo when one half as wide with a generous amount of JPEG compression would work just as well.

Now, of course, all this was put in place to make the whole experience here faster and better. If the majority of the forum members want to be able to upload extra-large photos, we could certainly change the upload limitations. Just remember, doing so means making the forum more difficult to see for a significant minority of the visitors here.


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

That's understandable. But 800 x 600 requires quite a bit of shrinkage (I said shrinkage :lol: ) anyway. With my 7mp camera, my raw photos are about 2-3 mb max and after resizing to 800 x 600, they're normally under 200kb. That's not too bad is it?

I can deal with the 560 x 420. It's just nice to see the little things you normally wouldn't with smaller pics. I suppose posting a link pretty much eliminates the problem, but the posts won't flow as well without the hotlinks. 

I'm sure you know what you're doing. I like that you're taking into consideration other people's load times.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

I just bumped up the maximum width to 625 pixels. Any wider than that, and the forum would automatically cut off the photos since they would spill beyond the maximum size of the board that's coded right into the templates. Fixing that problem would require me replacing all the rotating photos at the top of the board and then recoding the templates. And I'm not all that eager to do that. :wink:



LOAH said:


> after resizing to 800 x 600, they're normally under 200kb. That's not too bad is it?


Well, 200kb translates into 29 seconds of download time with a 56k modem running at maximum efficiency. Now, none of this is to say that I don't appreciate your fishing essays with all your photos; they're absolutely great (and well worth the download wait), and I've been meaning to tell you that.


----------



## fixed blade XC-3 (Sep 11, 2007)

Thanks peterson. Now we just need to do something about your avatar and I think I can help. :lol:


----------



## LOAH (Sep 29, 2007)

Wow. Thanks, and thanks. New photo sizes. Cool. Good man.


----------



## IcatchEm (Sep 11, 2007)

I can't figure it out, I give up.


----------



## James (Oct 7, 2007)

640x480 would be the ideal max size and around 120 kb file size. IMO 
Can you squeeze in just a few more pixels?

Thanks

James

Click Here

Here is one at 640 pixels wide. How does it fit your browser window? File size 36k.


----------



## Petersen (Sep 7, 2007)

IcatchEm said:


> I can't figure it out, I give up.





James said:


> 640x480 would be the ideal max size and around 120 kb file size. IMO
> Can you squeeze in just a few more pixels?


I've tried to explain in the announcement at the top of the Photography section.


----------



## FROGGER (Oct 1, 2007)

Dont give up, what cant you figure out, if you need help send me a PM


----------

