Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Digital Cameras & Shooting Techniques => Topic started by: BobDavid on November 24, 2015, 12:07:11 pm
-
Dear LL,
I think the $12 a year subscription fee is a bargain. I have learned a lot from the LL community, and I sometimes revisit the LL several times throughout the day. My only complaint about the new guidelines is limiting jpgs to 800 pixels on the long side.
I respectfully ask LL to reconsider the 800 limit and increase the maximum to 1200.
Some photographers post pictures exceeding 800 pixels by a factor of 2X, 3X, or more. No question, IT administration is costly--maintaining servers, optimizing data flow, and managing security.
SO, I appeal to the powers that be, to reconsider upping the maximum pixel count to 1200. That is only a 50% increase. 400 pixels matter. Many photos require more than 800 to view and interpret--subjects, processing techniques, diagrams and charts, etc.
Sincerely,.
BobDavid (Robert D. Rosinsky)
-
Robert, Message received. I'll discuss this with our developers.
-
Robert, Message received. I'll discuss this with our developers.
Also, will anything change in terms of providing images inside a forum post? AFAIK, the only way to do this is to place a JPEG onto my own server then 'link to it'. It would be nice if one could load an image from our own source computer and have that upload directly. I understand that will add to your servers overhead. But if you only accept JPEGs or images like screen captures of a fixed size or smaller, it would make providing such screen captures much easier.
-
Hi Andrew,
Actually if you place the image as an attachment to your post you can upload it directly to LL. No need to use your personal server to store your images. The only limit I see is 4 images per post, each 4096kb, which is more than enough. This is what I have done below:
-
Actually if you place the image as an attachment to your post you can upload it directly to LL.
Thanks! But I feel dumb, how do you place the image as an attachment?
-
Hi Andrew:
Just click on Attachments and other options' under the text dialog box and choose the file you want to show:
This works both for replies and for new topics.
-
Actually if you place the image as an attachment to your post you can upload it directly to LL. No need to use your personal server to store your images.
If you 'attach' an image, one needs to be logged in to see it, both thumbnail and enlarged view. Images linked to on another server are viewed 'in-line' by everyone - no need to be logged in.
But I feel dumb, how do you place the image as an attachment?
You don''t. You can only click the attachment box at the bottom of reply screen - and the image(s) are placed at the end of the post. NO placement control.
Edit:
Try viewing this page whilst you're logged out and you'll see the difference. Alain's images are not visible, not even placeholders.
-
Ah thanks! Never thought to click and expand those options.
Cool, it works! :D
-
That's correct. Here is an image posted from my server which should show to everyone, logged or not:
(http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/OPP/P45-Collage-25-800.jpg)
However logging on seeems a small price to pay to upload images freely.
-
That's correct. Here is an image posted from my server which should show to everyone, logged or not:
(http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/OPP/P45-Collage-25-800.jpg)
However logging on seeems a small price to pay to upload images freely.
You can get a free Flickr, MS or G+ account and upload photos there. Just get a link and post here. It shouldn't be a big deal for anyone.
-
Good point. I'm used to having my own server so I had not thought of that.
-
There are also sites like tinypic.com where you can upload a picture and quickly generate a link to it, if one finds that registering and learning how to use Flickr etc. might be too much trouble.
The advantage of that is that you can then include the picture anywhere within the post, instead at the end of the post, as with attachments.
-
Robert, Message received. I'll discuss this with our developers.
Thanks for listening. After giving the matter some thought--looking at it from the points of view of the LL community and the webmasters--how about splitting the difference (between 800 and 1200) and setting the limit to 1,000 pixels long?
-
I've always preferred to host all of my images that appear on LuLa on my own website and then use the Mona Lisa tag to insert the image in the forum post. It also has the advantage of being able to insert larger images.
I've always used the attachment option, but I'm happy to have learned the different means people use having read this post. BTW, what is the Mona Lisa tag?
-
I am not comfortable with third-party hosts (flkr et al.), and I am unwilling to open the tap and have my server linked to the internet. Having been hacked, I know what it takes to get up and running again. I guess each of us have our preferences re posting on LL.
-
That's correct. Here is an image posted from my server which should show to everyone, logged or not:
(http://www.beautiful-landscape.com/OPP/P45-Collage-25-800.jpg)
However logging on seeems a small price to pay to upload images freely.
Very cool photo, Alain.
-
Didn't know there was an 800 pixel dimension size limit to images uploaded to LuLa. I'm guessing this only applies to LuLa galleries? Because I've uploaded around 1000 pixel dimension images through the forum reply/attachment route with no problems.
What doesn't make sense concerning managing server overhead implementing image size limits on other sites such as Amazon reviews and Facebook user's Photo section & Cover Photo is that those sites require at least 1200 pixels on the long end to prevent severe downsizing artifacts.
For instance I noticed Amazon's upload customer review photos are always reduced to around 600 pixels for display, so when I started saving out of ACR/LR at that size uploading to one of my Amazon reviews, the image was riddled with severe compression artifacts. Deleted the image and re-uploaded at 1200 pixel and all was fine.
-
Didn't know there was an 800 pixel dimension size limit to images uploaded to LuLa.
It's a request, for now anyway, rather than a hard limit. The actual limits pertain to file sizes.
-Dave-