Walther Forums banner

1 - 11 of 11 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
What is the preferred way to post a pic? Is it “more proper” to embed it in the post rather than attach it as a clickable file? I was just curious.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,827 Posts
You can attach it here, but then the pic will be downsized. Or host it elsewhere and embed the link. Either way is fine.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
Since the last major update of the forum software, the newly uploaded photos will be downsized so much that it's difficult sometimes to recognize anything exactly.
 

·
Administrator
Joined
·
286 Posts
You can upload an image to the attachment manager to put it in your post as an attachment, or embed it into your post.

You can also use a hosting site, but ensure its HTTPS/SSL or the images wont show.

- JB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
6,228 Posts
I've posted threads in the FAQ section how to make images appear in your discussion, but over time I've come to believe the best option for attaching photographs is to attach them to the thread as Admin JB noted above. As others have indicated, the images appear downsized and barely discernible at times but one click reveals the full-sized image, which is often far better resolution than what may otherwise be imbedded in the text. Plus attachments avoid the danger of what happened when Photobucket blew their brains out a few years ago, breaking many millions of photo links both here and across the internet. Peed me off - I went through a lot of work to post many, many photos here over the years and now they're all gone. Attach 'em!

-Pilotsteve
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
...the images appear downsized ... but one click reveals the full-sized image...
Pilotsteve, yes, it should be like you say, but I'm afraid it's not. Please have a look at the following two identical pictures. The first one was attached to the forum by me almost five years ago and then linked to the text section of the original post and once more to this post. It looks like it should (1200 x 718 pixels):



The second one is the very same picture with the only difference that I attached it to the forum today. If you reach for the magnifying glass, you will see that it is really the same photo. It doesn't only appear downsized... it is really downsized (exactly 50%) no matter how you look at it (600 x 359 pixels):



A click on the small thumbnail doesn't reveal the full-sized image. It's simply impossible because I can see that my original file with a size of 180 KB was melted down to 29.2 KB.

I agree that forum members should attach their pictures to the forum because that's the best way to ensure access for a long time. For this reason I went through all my older posts someday and replaced the old third-party linked photos with the same content but attached to the forum. But with the current downsizing of the pictures, I would never have made that effort. Is the forum running out of space?
 

Attachments

·
Administrator
Joined
·
286 Posts
Attached thumbnails and images are downsized to speed up page load times and reduce lag for members who may not have the best internet. Clicking the image itself will open a larger image of it, which is easier to look at.

Images posted from URL's (Such as Photobucket, or Postimages, ect) are not scaled down as they are directly embedded from another site, which would be the full sized image as its uploaded (barring any restrictions from the site itself).

While the images may be smaller, clicking them will show them larger, and enhance user experience.

This also removes the ability for members to post an image which would be past your monitors display which could break the layout and cause you to have to scroll sideways to view the image. Such as an image which is 3000 x 2000 vs your monitor display only being 1080x920.

- JB
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
This also removes the ability for members to post an image which would be past your monitors display which could break the layout and cause you to have to scroll sideways to view the image. Such as an image which is 3000 x 2000 vs your monitor display only being 1080x920.
For this reason there is a resizer function in the CP which works perfectly. It prevents an image from being displayed larger than the monitor allows:



In my eyes it would be better to restrict the size of a single JPG to a reasonable size, maybe 200 or 300 KB. This would allow a sharp picture of about 1200 x 800 pixels. The forum's limiting values of 600 x 600 pixels today (which leads to a typical file size around 40 KB) are very humble. This circumstance will force more forum members to use Photobucket and other hosts where exactly the problems of huge pictures exist. Even on fast internet connections (I have fibre access 300 MBit/s) they are rather slow. This is exactly the opposite of the goal.

These are the current values. How were they set before?

 

Attachments

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
1,789 Posts
This also removes the ability for members to post an image which would be past your monitors display which could break the layout and cause you to have to scroll sideways to view the image. Such as an image which is 3000 x 2000 vs your monitor display only being 1080x920.
- JB
Are you really sure? It dependes on the settings in the user control panel (Edit Options / Thread Display Options / The Image Resizer). For example, if set the values to 700x700 then I get the following screen. As you can see, the photo is resized automatically to fit even a small screen perfectly. And I'm still able to expand it to its original size when needed:



Only if no limits in the CP are specified, the problem will occur as you describe it. But it certainly doesn't make sense to limit the dimensions of attached photos only because of the fact that some admins and users obviously don't know all the forum's display options very well. Of course they get a rather poor experience and probably something like this:

 

Attachments

1 - 11 of 11 Posts
Top