New picture size rules ?

[greenhead]

Has something changed in the past couple of days ?

It seems as if no matter what size picture you upload, the forum software sizes it down and only displays it as a small picture on the screen.

What's up with that ? Kind of sucks for people who keep picture journals.

 

[Sammet]

I noticed this too. Could we not have a file size limit rather than an image size limit? (that's if bandwith is an issue)

 

[greenhead]

I noticed this too. Could we not have a file size limit rather than an image size limit? (that's if bandwith is an issue)

Yeah, there's no file size limit at all when you upload, so it's not because of space that somebody decided to limit the max viewing size.

The current max viewing size is pathetic and is a poor decision.

 

[Dr Dog]

what problem are you having?
Cant you just remove the -thumb part to make it bigger?
or has something changed since yesterday?

 

[greenhead]

what problem are you having?
Cant you just remove the -thumb part to make it bigger?
or has something changed since yesterday?

Let's say you upload a picture that is 1000 x 800, it won't display it at that size in your post, even if you link directly to the main, fullsized picture.

I could swear that we were able to display bigger pictures before, so I think that something must've changed, maybe after this site was down for a few days recently.

 

[KharmaGirl]

It wasn't down for a few days, 12 hours or so. I haven't heard anything regarding a change. Who knows. I like how things are, so works for me

 

[Dr Dog]

Let's say you upload a picture that is 1000 x 800, it won't display it at that size in your post, even if you link directly to the main, fullsized picture.

I could swear that we were able to display bigger pictures before, so I think that something must've changed, maybe after this site was down for a few days recently.

ahh, i dont think you were, I take really big pics, the kind that you get in emails and say wtf was this guy thinking normally in the 2300 range, and I dont ever recall being able to put them up as that big. There is probably away to get them bigger if you know HTML

 

[greenhead]

ahh, i dont think you were, I take really big pics, the kind that you get in emails and say wtf was this guy thinking normally in the 2300 range, and I dont ever recall being able to put them up as that big. There is probably away to get them bigger if you know HTML

I think that I can prove that somebody has tampered with something in just the past couple of days.

I uploaded a picture to my journal a couple of days ago and sizewise, it shows up alright when I link to it.

I uploaded that exact same picture once more today, and that one comes up smaller sized.

You can see for yourself in my gallery, two identical uploaded pictures, uploaded a few days apart, shows up at different max viewing sizes.

You'll see two identical pictures called - jedixpdfemaleoverall and jedixpdfemaleoverall1 - And one is bigger than the other - though they are the same file

http://www.icmag.com/ic/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=533607&sort=1&cat=500&page=1

 

[KharmaGirl]

And if they did change it? Is it really any sort of big deal? It's just a website.....

 

[greenhead]

And if they did change it? Is it really any sort of big deal? It's just a website.....

It isn't a big deal, and it isn't the end of the world, but for somebody like me, it kind of defeats the purpose of keeping a picture journal. I just probably won't be updating my journal that often because of those rules, not that anybody cares, lol.

 

[Sammet]

And if they did change it? Is it really any sort of big deal? It's just a website.....

I'd say yes. It's going to have a definate impact on PoTM competitions, Flower Pix, the Cannabis Infirmary and the Grow Diaries sections in general.

If this is the biggest you can post photos then you lose detail..

Here's a visual comparison




As you can see, there's a big difference. So I think it's a shame and that grow diaries and especially the flower pix forum will be of a lower standard from now on.

You can see that when the photo upload goes down that the activity on ICMag goes down too, photos are the main thing that drive this place. Not being able to post full size photos will be a hindrance to a lot of growers who rely on large clear photos as a reference. It's harder to share the vast amount of knowledge some growers on this site have with small photos...

 

[FreezerBoy]

Hosting pictures costs money. Personally, I keep my shots at a height of 600 pixels or no more than 800 wide. Quality setting is generally medium to low and then I'll run them through Image Ready to shrink file size even more or switch to GIF mode.

Speaking to no one in particular, seems to me that failure to reduce images as much as possible is self centered and rude. If you want bigger pics, use your own site and pay the bills yourself.

 

[KharmaGirl]

^^^^^What he said

 

[Sammet]

But each member is given 150mb for photos - surely if people want to be able to post higher quality photos they should be allowed - they won't use up more than people posting lower quality ones because each person has the same 150mb. If there's a lack of space on the servers then why not lower the 150mb rather than change the size? As it stands now, the same amount of data will still be on the server either way.


Is it rude and self centered to post large photos of your grow in your grow diary, a thread that you've created to show off your photos of your plants?


I'm sorry but it just sounds a bit to me.

 

[Mr.Rogers]

making pictures smaller is gh3y

 

[FreezerBoy]

Is it rude and self centered to post large photos of your grow in your grow diary, a thread that you've created to show off your photos of your plants?

As someone with a diary here, it's self centered whether you post pictures or not. It becomes rude when when the servers get stuffed with bloat and the bill gets passed to IC. The Blue bud above, (not to be picking on anyone, it's there and convenient) when reduced to 600 pixels height and low quality compression is less than half the file size with no loss of "knowledge."

The faster the server fills up, the faster it costs IC more money. He who pays the bills makes the rules. The proper response is, "Thank you, IC."

By the way, thank you, IC.

 

[greenhead]

Speaking to no one in particular, seems to me that failure to reduce images as much as possible is self centered and rude. If you want bigger pics, use your own site and pay the bills yourself.

Or just host the images someplace else, like an image hosting site, that's one workaround that will get past the new midget picture size rule.

I admit that I am self centered and rude, because I don't give a crap about filesize and I don't give a crap about anybody with 28.8k modems in 2008, lol. And if I'm looking at somebody else's grow journal, I'd rather not be looking at midget sized pictures only, that to me is rude, lol. But, to each his own.

 

[Sammet]

As someone with a diary here, it's self centered whether you post pictures or not. It becomes rude when when the servers get stuffed with bloat and the bill gets passed to IC. The Blue bud above, (not to be picking on anyone, it's there and convenient) when reduced to 600 pixels height and low quality compression is less than half the file size with no loss of "knowledge."

The faster the server fills up, the faster it costs IC more money. He who pays the bills makes the rules. The proper response is, "Thank you, IC."

By the way, thank you, IC.

FreezerBoy - everyone still has a limit of 150mb to upload photos, so whats the difference between posting 10 15mb photos or 1000 150kb photos? It still takes up the same space on the server.

That's why it's so odd - why change the photo size and not the gallery space allocation?

 

[FreezerBoy]

First let's be clear. We're all friends here just shooting the breeze. How ya doing? The wife and kids? cool. Hey, kids. Have a beer (You, not the kids. I've got heroin pops for the kids.)

Back to the photos. Because the faster we fill up the space, the faster it costs IC more money and because people insist on nonsense like this ...

http://www.icmag.com/ic/showthread.php?t=80067

2000 x 1500 is ridiculous and disrupts the reading process. The picture below it is 250 x 188 and is FAR more informative at 1/10 the size. Photos should enhance communication not hamper it.

IC has provided us with a file size far larger than we need at no cost to us. If one needs more then surely it's worth paying for out of one's own pocket. If one don't want to pay for it, then obviously the larger file exists only to empty ICs wallet asap while screwing up the reading of other members.

I'll bet you one shiny US nickle that if you give IC your credit card and promise to pick up the charges for this site from now on, they'll let you post any size you got. How bad do you want it?

 

[Sammet]

I don't think you get it mate. I'm walking away from this thread because I don't want to argue.