rant about large uploaded images

[joatmon]

A lot of pictures uploaded to the forum are a reasonable size, but sometimes people post huge pictures here, and most of the time I don't wait for them to download. None of the really big pictures need to be that huge. You can crop away the parts that don't matter, resize the picture smaller without sacrificing the ability to show what the picture is intended to show. Really big files take up bandwidth and space on the server, really big images take up too much space on the desktop and force users to scroll horizontally to read the text in a thread.There are lots of expensive image editing software packages available, but there are also a lot of pretty good FREE ones also. I like IrfanView It's free, small, loads quickly, and will let you crop/resize. Supports lots of formats, does thumbnails, slideshows, all kinds of stuff. I also use PaintShop Pro for more advanced tasks. I bought a licensed copy, but I think you can download a shareware version from http://www.jasc.com. I am sure there are many other programs out there that can be used to take those worthwhile photographs and make them suitable for uploading. The image file straight off the camera is almost always too big for publishing on the web.I have a brutually slow internet connection, with no alternatives I can afford. Any pic over 100KB I'm likely to never see.Now that the new forum software shortens really long URLs, I'll edit my genvibe profile to turn off auto display of images. OK, done with the rant.

[meathead333]

i agree, then again, my sig is pretty big. i need to resize it

[Vibe Rater]

I like Irfanview for the simple stuff too.

[dmitri]

get broadband.

[ragingfish]

joatmon --very valid points. some images are absurdley large. many users i suspect aren't comfortable enough to resize.that aside, i'll admit i'm often guilty of this. problem is, honestly, i haven't had dialup in a year. i can't remember how it's like to be on a slow connection. more importantly, i don't know what file sizes are reasonable in terms of download times on dialup, and what becomes too large.my point is, at least in my case, if a pic is too honkin' big, drop me an im so i know, i'm always happy to oblige and shink 'er down...just need to know it's too big.

[pwarren4]

I suggest a size limit of 500 x 500 pixels

[Geo]

I tend to go with 800x600 or 640x480 - allows enough detail to remain in the pics, without being too small.I personally see it as a catering to the majority thing. The majority of people these days have broadband, and run in screen resolution sizes of over 800x600, mostly 1024x768, or 1280x1024. So I make sure my images fit within what I can see on my 12" laptop screen (1024x768) and if they can, are alright with me. Since the minority of people have trouble with this, I don't have that much trouble alienating them because they are, in fact, in the minority. Harsh, but just how the internet has progressed throughout the last 8 years. (Upgrade your setup because things get bigger and more graphics/coding intensive, or deal with staying behind)Absurdly huge images are kinda annoying though, unless they need to be posted that big in the first place for specific reasons.Just my 2¢.

[drunkenmaxx]

so, bascially, f*ck you if you can't afford the upgrade? you're a dirtbag anyway?-ok, maybe you don't mean that, but some people just are unable to get broadband. besides, memory is also a major issue, your broadband won't fix that!

[Geo]

I wouldn't say you are a "dirtbag." But it's not like when you go to a website such as http://www.xanthic.net, you have other options. The best option for this designer and the point that he is trying to get across cannot be done with a less graphics intensive website. A lot of the pics need a certain amount of detail to be useful, and/or prettier, so to scale them down to such a size, you lose a lot of that. Which is why I don't care to scale down my images anymore, because I personally believe that the detail is lost otherwise. If you don't want to waste the time downloading the images, then I think there's an option to turn it off. That way, everybody is happy.

[drunkenmaxx]

is sh*tbag more like it? i understand what you mean, but, as a mac user, i can tell you how much it sucks when you want to be in on a conversation, but cant because you cant see what the majority sees. i haven't really seen many pics on here that need to be the huge, i have seen ones that are way too big and just waste space. i have no idea what kind of connection i have, this is my work 'puter

[joatmon]

I just wanted to point out that sometimes there are some excessively large pictures that get uploaded, and that there are easy ways to keep pictures to a manageable size, maybe by mentioning it, it would head off a couple huge pictures in the future. There is no set rule to go by, it depends on the image. There should be no maximum. but some images are bigger than they need to be. The one that I have attached is an example of a picture that is too big for what is needed.Just mentioning the issue to raise awareness, not demanding strict rules be imposed or begging for mercy.And this thread definitely didn't need lots of words that had to have asterisks. However, that can the topic for another rant.

Attached files

[drunkenmaxx]

i know exactly what you mean, i hate when i have to scroll to read stuff because of a pic

[Geo]

Quote, originally posted by drunkenvibe »is sh*tbag more like it? i understand what you mean, but, as a mac user, i can tell you how much it sucks when you want to be in on a conversation, but cant because you cant see what the majority sees. i haven't really seen many pics on here that need to be the huge, i have seen ones that are way too big and just waste space. i have no idea what kind of connection i have, this is my work 'puterJust want to mention that I am a fellow Mac user ( ) so I know what you're talking about.However ever since switching to OSX, very few times does something come across where I can't see it filetype wise. It's just those stupid websites and "games" from websites that require you to have IE for windows ...I do agree with you that most pics don't need to be as large as they have shown (life-size front of the Vibe from a while back, if I recall) but I also highly doubt that 800x600 is a problem for the majority.

[drunkenmaxx]

so, then, do you have probs viewing a lot of the videos posted? i have OS 9 because my company has been weary of upgrading to X. so, why are you on a mac? personal choice or are you at work?

[Kari]

Did someone from your company attend one of the Apple Driven by Design seminars last month? That was an excellent presentation, I thought, and they really did a good job about showing people the switch to OS X and alleviating fears about it, in addition to showing us all of the WONDERFUL new features of Photoshop CS, the entire Adobe Creative Suite, Quark 6, and several other design/printing/scanning/etc. equipment and programs. Color matchers, high-end scanners, paper, etc.I personally use a Mac by choice, but I switched out of necessity because we use Macs in our journalism program here. However, you couldn't pay me to go back now. I love OS X, and I love my 12" iBook G4.

[drunkenmaxx]

mine is one of the spiffy G4's with the flat screen, glowing lights on the monitor that are touch sensitive, etc. noone went to that meeting, sounds neat though, considering i do printing work on my computer