PDA

View Full Version : Those crazy "picture frames" in the desktop threads


tobefirst
Aug 14, 2006, 03:28 PM
Forgive me if there has been a thread on this before; I looked through the Picture Gallery forum, but couldn't find it and, really, I didn't know what to look for. What I want to know is this:

In the Desktop Gallery threads, what is up with using those tools that make it look like your desktop is in a tiny, but very wide iMac, or contained in three polaroids, or some other strange frame?

I'm hoping to understand the point. Usually, I just skip those ones, as I don't want to be bothered with clicking on anything. Since it doesn't show the whole desktop, I never get to see what you're trying to show.

Isn't it just way easier to just link to (or attach) the actual desktop picture?

xper
Aug 14, 2006, 03:30 PM
Isn't it just way easier to just link to (or attach) the actual desktop picture?
Why is it so hard to click on the thumbnails? You get to see the whole desktop then.

gauchogolfer
Aug 14, 2006, 03:35 PM
Because this is the coolest:

http://img73.imageshack.us/img73/4172/august11borderlw8.png (http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/3043/august11fullft8.png)

Seriously, it takes up less space than posting a gigantic 1600x1200 picture like some folks do, but is more visible than a thumbnail. Now that Snapshooter is so well known, everyone is doing it (even me!). What once was cool is now getting old, but I'm still hangin' on. :)

tobefirst
Aug 14, 2006, 03:37 PM
Why is it so hard to click on the thumbnails? You get to see the whole desktop then.
Because in the rest of the posts, the desktops are already there. It's like the poster with the silly frames is asking me to go out of my way to see his (or her) desktop picture. That really doesn't make much sense (to me).

If you're posting in the desktops thread, you obviously want to show off your desktop picture...why make it harder than it needs to be?


Seriously, it takes up less space than posting a gigantic 1600x1200 picture like some folks do...
Okay...now this reason makes a tiny bit of sense. A tiny bit. (:

Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 14, 2006, 03:37 PM
No, I'm with tobefirst on this one. I very rarely bother to click on one of those flickr/devianart/imageshack/etc. thumbnails only showing a part of the screen with some fancy frame.

If those posting those cannot be bothered attaching your desktop image (in an optimized version under the weight limit) why the frell should I be bothered to click on it, and wait for bloody ages on those sloooooooow free image sites, to see the desktop. Life's too short.

xper
Aug 14, 2006, 03:40 PM
tobefirst Yeah but you said that you'll be ok if we linked to the desktop instead, i really dont get why it is harder for you to click on an imagelink instead of a textlink.

tobefirst
Aug 14, 2006, 03:42 PM
tobefirst Yeah but you said that you'll be ok if we linked to the desktop instead, i really dont get why it is harder for you to click on an imagelink instead of a textlink.
Sorry...my fault...I meant using the [IMG] tag...not an outside link. Those are skipped even more often. (:

Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 14, 2006, 03:43 PM
Seriously, it takes up less space than posting a gigantic 1600x1200 picture like some folks do, but is more visible than a thumbnail.No, because when you attach an image to the post you only get a thumnail about 250 px wide, showing up in the thread, but of the whole image, so it's much easier to see if this is interesting or not, when you click it you know it's under 244 kb and on a fast server and will load accordingly... the frame is totally uninteresting compared to the actual desktop image... :rolleyes:

Posting 1600x1200 images inline should be an instantly bannable offence, IMO.

xper
Aug 14, 2006, 03:49 PM
Sorry...my fault...I meant using the [IMG] tag...not an outside link. Those are skipped even more often. (:
Ok now i get it ;) Yeah sure i can agree to some extent, it's not fun when you see that little picture and just a little bit of the desktop and then get dissapointed when viewing it in fullscale:(

srf4real
Aug 14, 2006, 08:49 PM
How do you get the actual picture size to show up in this comment window, like 900 X 700 or whatever? It's cool when the pic is big enough to see right here in the post without having to click on a link to enlarge.

iTwitch
Aug 14, 2006, 10:35 PM
srf4r
hit reply, enter your text then scoll down to "Manage Attachments". Click "Browse" and find the pic then click "upload" and after it's done "close window". Then ""Sumbit Reply". Oh, your pics need to be 244k or less.

gauchogolfer
Aug 15, 2006, 03:59 AM
srf4r
hit reply, enter your text then scoll down to "Manage Attachments". Click "Browse" and find the pic then click "upload" and after it's done "close window". Then ""Sumbit Reply". Oh, your pics need to be 244k or less.

Actually, to get attached images to display directly in a reply, you need to have the picture hosted on a site like imageshack, then put the url for the image inside tags in the reply. This will avoid the need for thumbnails.

iTwitch
Aug 15, 2006, 04:41 PM
Oh, I see now. He wants to know how to post those annoyingly large images. :p

srf4real
Aug 15, 2006, 08:23 PM
Thanks. I was wanting to post the large images sometimes - when the picture is worth it... don't upload my pix to a host, though. I'll stick with the "clickit if ya wanna see it" way!

UMHurricanes34
Aug 15, 2006, 08:35 PM
How come when I take a screen shot in snapshooter it always messes with the colors?