Picture size

[john robinson]

Surfbirds advises on posting pictures,
with guidlines on sizes etc.
On the common birds section, just look at the variation. What is the point of having guidelines if only to be ignored. It is not fair on the ones that stick to to the rules. Posting pics that go off the page is not serving any purpose or doing the poster any good anyway. Bigger is not always better.
The guidlines might as well be removed and we can all go for a free for all.
John RFobinson
.

[AndyB]

Hi John, we do go through the galleries periodically and remove offending photos but cannot maintain that level of policing on a daily or even weekly basis. The only thing we can ensure is that the pics cannot be over 50kb. It's not even possible to upload a photo larger than 50kb. We could probably increase that file size (as more people move away from dial-up) larger photos should be acceptable for anyone browsing the galleries.

In terms of pixel width, the majority follow the guidelines (which we all appreciate) and then there are others who do not know the guidelines, can't be bothered to read them or just choose not to follow them. We could make the acceptable image width greater than 500 pixels wide but there gets to a point when it's so large that you start to lose resolution and, as you say, bigger is not always better. Reason we chose that width is to keep the photos small enough that others don't have to do too much scrolling to the right. Those photos you refer to don't look better at that size because the larger the width whilst trying to stay under 50kb means you're trading off resolution. At least you can take comfort that your photos look so much better because you are following the rules!

Best, Andy

[Joe stockwell]

john
i had noticed this as well i rarely step above 700x whatever (appart from the odd one or two) but i really think that photos the size of my monitor is a bit much!

is there a way of stopping this?

[MichaelF]

A couple of other forums I'm on, you can upload virtually any size photo you like (I've loaded 3 megabyte pics, it's slow, but they do upload), then the site software automatically resizes the pic for you to specified maximum sizes (about 250kb if I remember right).

Why not introduce this?

The only thing we can ensure is that the pics cannot be over 50kb. It's not even possible to upload a photo larger than 50kb.
That's very low resolution! A 250kb maximum would be better.

[john robinson]

Andy
I take your points.
One of my main concerns is that this is a free forum and I think we should all be grateful and hope it stops that way. I feel that the least we can do in return is to abide by the forum guidelines which to me are perfectly easy to understand. Maybe I'm old fashiioned !
A standard pixel and KB maximum would put every one on an even footing anyway. Some folks just think bigger is better - which it aint !
Cheers
John

[MichaelF]

Try comparing here:
http://www.ubcbotanicalgarden.org/forums/showthread.php?t=725

[john robinson]

If things go on as they are we shall all need two monitors.
JR

[MichaelF]

Like this??
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Green.tree.monitor.lizard.arp.jpg

[Colin Key]

Like this??
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Green.tree.monitor.lizard.arp.jpg

:laugh::laugh::laugh:

Colin

[Joe stockwell]

another is the people who cant tell the difference between a common bird, a scarce bird and a rare bird!

[MichaelF]

another is the people who cant tell the difference between a common bird, a scarce bird and a rare bird!
Presumably the admin people can move pics from one gallery to another? Or not enough time?

[john robinson]

Like this??
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Green.tree.monitor.lizard.arp.jpg

No - not really.
JohnR

[john robinson]

another is the people who cant tell the difference between a common bird, a scarce bird and a rare bird!

Sorry Joe but my point on this thread is about picture sizes, used in postings ,(which no one is taking seriously anyway ) which is nothing to do with twitchers codes about rarities and scarcities etc.
Cheers
JR

[MichaelF]

No - not really.
So what do you mean about wanting two monitors? Is it for large pics, one to show the left half of the pic, the other to show the right half?

[john robinson]

So what do you mean about wanting two monitors? Is it for large pics, one to show the left half of the pic, the other to show the right half?

You got it Michael - not the lizard variety - they come under the reptile section.
Cheers
JohnR

[Colin Key]

I do sympathise with John to some extent. From previous discussions I know that John does not have (and cannot get) a broadband internet connection which brings its own problems in terms of downloading photos.

I have never posted any photos on the general Surfbirds website so I do not know what the size restrictions (or guidelines) are. Posting in the Forum Gallery there are no size restrictions at all. But there are two aspects of "size" to consider: there is the dimensions of the photo in terms of pixels, and the file-size in terms of amount of digital data and picture quality. I tend to save my JPEGs for web publication at 800 pixels maximum dimension but at maximum (12) image quality. I do not like to see photos at original dimensions because you need to scroll vertically and horizontally to view the entire image which, in my opinion, is a waste of time. I have advised a number of people to resize their images to 800 (or even 600) pixels which gives a more easily viewable and at the same time better quality on-screen photo. I know that this does not entirely solve John's grievance because even at the reduced image dimension, saving a JPEG at highest quality results in a file size which he might have difficulty in downloading with a dial-up connection.

Colin

[MichaelF]

I do not like to see photos at original dimensions because you need to scroll vertically and horizontally to view the entire image which, in my opinion, is a waste of time.
That depends on your browser - it is a problem with IE (older versions at least), but with Firefox you have a choice of seeing it full size, or auto-fit to your monitor size. Different people have different monitor sizes, mine is 1024px wide, but a lot of people now have 1400px or 1600px (or even larger!) monitors, and I bet a few still use old 640px monitors.

[Colin Key]

That depends on your browser - it is a problem with IE (older versions at least), but with Firefox you have a choice of seeing it full size, or auto-fit to your monitor size. Different people have different monitor sizes, mine is 1024px wide, but a lot of people now have 1400px or 1600px (or even larger!) monitors, and I bet a few still use old 640px monitors.

I use an iMac 20" and a Sony Vaio 17", both with Firefox 3 web-browser. Very few people have a large, dedicated monitor set up to view full size, straight out of camera, original photo files. Even photographic forums such as Fred Miranda, DPReview, etc. warn that opening full size photo files will produce a scrollable image. I do not see the point of this unless you are "pixel peeping" a particular image for the purposes of assessing image quality, sharpness, artifacts, etc.

Colin

[john robinson]

My basic point is very simple - its a free site and so guidelines should ,as a matter of courtesy and manners be acknowledged. Its not difficult- 500 pixels and maximum 50 kbs
Even I can understand that, and its keeps everyone and every thing on an even keel. I don't think its too much to ask. If not- then s.... the guidelines- that too is very simple.
I've had my say and as far as I am concerned the matter is closed.
Cheers
JohnR

[Joe stockwell]

sorry john, as to you point of nobody is taking any notice to it the wrong people are reading it i have a small idea though

when you or anybody who reads this posts a photo onto one of the galleries why not put the link to this thread where a website or blog is meant to go then people may start too get the message

just an idea?

joe

[Andrew Cunningham]

Surfbirds is a global website.

The world does not have broadband.

It is only the developed/rich society who enjoys that luxury.

There could be a birder in Kenya who has to pay for each minute he is online via some kind of dial up of an inferior standard to our dial up who gets frustrated waiting five minutes to view a gallery and then sees nothing of relevence to him/her.

Mind you, he/she probably goes home happier than we do. ;-)

[john robinson]

Very well said Andrew.
JohnR