A request for those of us without a high speed connection

[velotrain]

Often I'll click on a thumbnail and it will take some time to open.  I've found that many times if I just cancel out and try again it opens rather quickly.  Other times it just takes a really long time, and I think that it must be a rather large and/or dense image.  I just opened a photo that was 860 kb, but there was absolutely no reason it had to be so large, as there was no detail to speak of.  I suspect some people just take a photo and post it without checking the size.  I'd say 200-500 kb is fine, but if you have something larger do consider reducing the size before putting it here.  thanks, and out

 

[bill937ca]

I always resize my photos to 1024 x 768 before posting. This reduces the size  (in the case of a recent post delivery thead post) from  3.79MB  to 123KB. It is not only a courtesy to those with less robust connections but also saves bandwith.

[cteno4]

Yes and it's also good as our server space and bandwidth are not unlimited. Files from mobiles and tablets uploaded as taken can now be 10m pixels or more. I've found with the iPad if you just crop the photo a tiny bit and then upload that photo you get a good sized photo but the jpeg is 100-200k as well.

 

Jeff

[katoftw]

I dont think it is an internet speed issue. I have similar issues with you where a image will take 2 seconds to load. And same image will take 15 seconds to load at a different time. I'm pretty sure it is a storage/server issue.

 

Especially worse not we cannot link open pictures and more are uploading directly to the website's server.

[cteno4]

It can be file size as many times the first time a jpeg is made by a camera it's pretty bloated. A little compression and tossing extra stuff in there can really crunch them down.

 

Part is always going to be a connection issue with how fast the server is, how busy it is, how many nodes it needs to transit to get to you and your final connection to you.

 

But always good form to try to squeeze photos for uploading.

 

Cheers

 

Jeff

[medusa]

My personal opinion is, none of the crappy imagers built into common smartphones really is worth to post its multi-megapixel blurry images in full resolution.

 

Things are different if one of us here has a professional photo camera and lighting for really good detail photography. My own camera is of medium quality, my skills as a photographer are not that good and on most days the lighting due to the weather is less than optimal. Thus, I scale every image down to 800x600 or less which is plenty to give a short impression what I did at home.

 

And in the end this here is a forum which we may use free of charge. Thus, I am a friendly user and try to save harddisk storage space whenever I can.

[velotrain]

For me it largely depends on whether the image is just documentation, or a really fine image - say of a train in a stunning landscape.

 

For photos I take myself, I always crop them down to just the relevant area, and usually resize or compress.

 

I wasn't proposing any hard rules, but just suggesting that folks be conscious of this.

 

A question:  are there any benefits to posting a thumbnail in the message vs. the full image?  I realize that if there are many images, then the thumbnails mean a more compressed message.  However, with the current rules, I'm posting a lot more links than images.

 

[Sascha]

From my experience it is usually large when you post it from a phone.That's what I do most of the time.