Digital Photography Forum - Photo of the Day: Quoting images with TIMG

[Eraserhead]

If it was agreed upon that the images posted were not excessive in size (like maybe not over 1024 pixels in width)

1024 (x768) is too big. 800x600 is as large as is reasonable as otherwise you'll need to scroll on a MacBook to see the whole image vertically, and on an iBook you'll need to scroll horizontally, and thats assuming people maximise their web browser ala Windows.

 

[iBlue]

1024 (x768) is too big. 800x600 is as large as is reasonable as otherwise you'll need to scroll on a MacBook to see the whole image vertically, and on an iBook you'll need to scroll horizontally, and thats assuming people maximise their web browser ala Windows.

Tough. (at least that's how I think of it.) It's an image thread and people can expect to see large images in there. 1024 is large but it's not that excessive. JMO though.

 

[Grimace]

MacBooks etc. are going to be in a tough spot no matter what but I think 1024px per image width is still too much. One has to take into account that the MR sidebar takes up a lot of space. On a 1024x768 browser window, 235 pixels are already sucked up: ~50 pixels are used by each side of the page and then ~185px for the MR sidebar with username etc. That leaves 789 pixels available for picture use - with no "scrunching".

Since the MR sidebar can squish a little bit when the photos get larger, I think 800px is the maximum we should have -- to accommodate 1024x768 screens. Screenshot below of what things look like on a 1024x768 screen. The sidebar scrunched all the way down to the point where Valdore's 855px image would fit without bringing up scroll bars.

 

[stcanard]

As a MacBook user the wider images don't bother me, as long as the poster is aware that I may not scroll to see the whole image unless something in the right side side really catches my attention

 

[oblomow]

Although this discussion hasn't been completely finished, I noticed that today a mod has been putting timg tags on on some original postings (not quotes) in the thread. These images were not larger than 800 pixels. Is this a way to stir up the discussion?

 

[srf4real]

I have begun trying to police myself to avoid the need for mod intervention... posting large images with <timg> tags in my initial posts. Then when quoted the timg tag will stay put. I appreciate the ability to view image quality at a larger size without requesting one from the original photographer if they see fit to post it... using two monitors side by side, size does not matter to me but I do not wish to offend or inconvenience any of my fellow MR members.

 

[xUKHCx]

These images were not larger than 800 pixels.

1024x768 larger
1024x683 larger
1024x684 larger
1024x683 larger
1024x691 larger
1024x1024 larger
535x800 = 800 but in vertical direction
700x938 larger
1512x999 larger

 

[oblomow]

1024x768 larger
1024x683 larger
1024x684 larger
1024x683 larger
1024x691 larger
1024x1024 larger
535x800 = 800 but in vertical direction
700x938 larger
1512x999 larger

Ok, fair enough. I only knew the exact size of mine ( the 535x800). Didn't know there were special rules for vertical ones.

 

[stcanard]

1024x768 larger
1024x683 larger
1024x684 larger
1024x683 larger
1024x691 larger
1024x1024 larger
535x800 = 800 but in vertical direction
700x938 larger
1512x999 larger

If I can ask, then -- what has the final decision been?

I haven't seen it explained in this thread yet.

 

[xUKHCx]

If I can ask, then -- what has the final decision been?

I haven't seen it explained in this thread yet.

It is something that has been worked on for a very very long time, way long than just this thread. The final decision has not been confirmed as yet, however when it has been it will be conveyed accordingly.

 

[stcanard]

It is something that has been worked on for a very very long time, way long than just this thread. The final decision has not been confirmed as yet, however when it has been it will be conveyed accordingly.

Then can you please give reasons when you edit posts -- if we aren't told what the decision is, and aren't told what we are doing wrong when a post is edited, it will be very difficult for the participants to understand what needs to be changed.

For instance, I have seen no indication of a maximum height of a picture, although that apparently is an issue.

 

[xUKHCx]

Then can you please give reasons when you edit posts

I do, check back and you will see that all the posts that were edited have a reason left by them. Reason given was "timg tags" this indicates that the image was deemed too large.

For instance, I have seen no indication of a maximum height of a picture, although that apparently is an issue.

It is a talking point in this very thread about maximum heights.

 

[stcanard]

I do, check back and you will see that all the posts that were edited have a reason left by them. Reason given was "timg tags" this indicates that the image was deemed too large.

If you could give a bit more (i.e. 'max height 640') that would be helpful, so people know the limitations

It is a talking point in this very thread about maximum heights.

Only in the context of width; e.g. 'I recommend a maximum of 800 x 640 because 1040 is too wide'

Based on oblomow's comment above, and my own reading of the thread, I don't think it was clear that the height was anything more than a number added for standard aspect ratio; I just searched the entire thread and the first mention of it was in my last question.

Please understand -- the photo thread has operated in a specific away for a number of years (and with permission to operate outside of the standard picture posting rules) and now the rules have changed.

Those of us who have been around for a long time are struggling to understand what has changed so we can follow the new rules -- we have survived on this forum by being good citizens.

Right now I feel like I don't understand the rules; this thread was started to help the regular participants come to an understanding of what these new rules are, but now I feel more confused than ever.

Guidance would be helpful.

Thanks

 

[oblomow]

Editing of xcalibre's post today:

Last edited by xUKHCx : Today at 08:05 PM. Reason: perhaps if you looked in the right place you would find the answer

I think this is a bit harsh, since the discussion on how to act in the potd thread is still ongoing.
Ok, using the word 'crap' may be offensive, but someone going around in the thread enforcing rules that are not clear yet (or under discussion) can expect these type of reactions.

 

[pdxflint]

It's not worth it...

I tried to understand, and to see if a discussion of this issue could result in a solution which would benefit everyone - but it is back to the same old heavy-handed stuff. The atmosphere from the mods is not friendly here, so I'm not coming back. Enjoy your "power", kids!

 

[Eraserhead]

I think this is a bit harsh, since the discussion on how to act in the potd thread is still ongoing.

Its tough for the moderators to always be 100% perfect but that this thread is open means they are looking for a solution, and they do generally try to accommodate the members.

To be honest if the current width limit is 800 pixels to me that means anything over 600 would be too high by common sense, as 800x600 is a standard resolution. Given that all Intel Macs are widescreen that doesn't exactly make the screens taller so they can view taller images does it .

 

[stcanard]

To be honest if the current width limit is 800 pixels to me that means anything over 600 would be too high by common sense, as 800x600 is a standard resolution. Given that all Intel Macs are widescreen that doesn't exactly make the screens taller so they can view taller images does it .

Honestly, from my point of view as a developer, width is far more important than height, because in the UI people are far more used to scrolling up/down than left/right.

We are probably running into issues here that we have people with many different backgrounds discussing.

Its tough for the moderators to always be 100% perfect but that this thread is open means they are looking for a solution, and they do generally try to accommodate the members.

I agree, but I also agree with pdxflint, given the fact that we have been told that the rules are being worked out still and we won't be told what they actually are until they are finished, and after my request that the mods explain why the posts are being edited so we can learn and not repeat mistakes, this edit in post #636 of the current photo of the day thread seems pretty harsh...

Last edited by xUKHCx : Today at 11:05 AM. Reason: perhaps if you looked in the right place you would find the answer

 

[Artful Dodger]

Just a thought…when quoting within the POTD thread, if the photos won't be included or as an option, could there be a separate "quote" button or something to that effect that would instead supply the original post # such as post #26 and the "page" # such as: quote for post #26 on page #3 so that one could find the original photo and where it is without clutter that some feel either in the thread or because of internet speed(s)? This might be nice for the skimmers or for those that have posted and are showing others a specific post/photo/reply and want to pin-point a post without adding unnecessary steps. I know I don't post much in the Digital Photography Forum but would like to start posting more without adding stress to the issue(s) at hand.