Why not to post large attachments

[daveb-SMB]

Testing affects of a large attachment picture.



Because I use small screen laptops 90% of the time, I'd like to see everybody size to 800x600 when posting an attachment picture. I won't even read a post if somebody sticks a large picture in it. Not only is the picture so wide and tall that scrolling is required, it changes all the text in each post making it necessary to scroll across to read the full text of the post. That includes others who reply. As far as gallery pics, yes the site automatically resizes the pictures.

 

[Zeta-SMB]

large attachments

Died of old age waiting for it to load on Tapa. When I tried to open it, Tapa crashed--twice.

Z


Http://www.tomsinclair.net

 

[Ford_6L_E350]

Re: large attachments

I guess that means attachments can be much larger than the 900x900 for the gallery pics.

I only upload to my gallery, then paste them into a post. Does the 900 pixel max bother you that much?

Mike

 

[Gnarvan]

Re: large attachments

My iPad doesn't have any issues with overly large photos. They load fast and normal size

 

[daveb-SMB]

Re: large attachments

Doesn't it depend on the size of your monitor?
Sure I did go to the extreme, and I would think
any larger pic would be silly, but I would think there
is a reason for the site to automatically size the
pictures to what they are in the gallery section
besides just bandwidth. I just think somewhere
in that area (close to 800x600) seems...reasonable?

 

[daveb-SMB]

Re: large attachments

I guess that means attachments can be much larger than the 900x900 for the gallery pics.

I only upload to my gallery, then paste them into a post. Does the 900 pixel max bother you that much?

Mike

No Mike and even slightly larger pics don't bother me.
It's the text, especially long posts.

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal.

Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure. We are met on a great battle-field of that war. We have come to dedicate a portion of that field, as a final resting place for those who here gave their lives that that nation might live. It is altogether fitting and proper that we should do this.

But, in a larger sense, we can not dedicate -- we can not consecrate -- we can not hallow -- this ground. The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract. The world will little note, nor long remember what we say here, but it can never forget what they did here. It is for us the living, rather, to be dedicated here to the unfinished work which they who fought here have thus far so nobly advanced. It is rather for us to be here dedicated to the great task remaining before us -- that from these honored dead we take increased devotion to that cause for which they gave the last full measure of devotion -- that we here highly resolve that these dead shall not have died in vain -- that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.

 

[Ford_6L_E350]

Re: large attachments

Dave, clearly I (and everyone else) can see the problem.

If attachments were limited in size as the gallery is, the problem would either be gone or reduced enough to ignore?

And that goes back to the programmers of the format.

And well beyond my ability to even comment on.

I do agree that large photos mess up the entire thread, not just the post they are embedded in.

Mike

 

[charlie56]

Re: large attachments

Wow
Was able to read the gettysburg address and all the other posts before your photo loaded on my iPhone. It really messed up my ability to type this reply
The top of the photo looks nice though. Maybe in an hour or so I will see the complete photo. Waiting for the iPhone 5 next month with 4G. This old iPhone is too slow.

 

[Jeffrey-SMB]

Re: large attachments

I'd like to see everybody size to 800x600 when posting an attachment picture.

Problem is, you didn't stick to your own rule.

As a serious photographer and member of numerous photography forums, one that I moderate, I have this dialed in. You MUST resize your image to about 800-900 maximum on the longest side before posting on the web. You can't just take it from your camera and post it unless your camera is set to create small jpegs of that size or smaller.

 

[daveb-SMB]

Re: large attachments

The thread is in responce to a question of what to resize to and was an example why not
to post large attachments. Guess I need to edit the topic header. So I will do so now.

 

[daveb-SMB]

Re: large attachments

Wow
Was able to read the gettysburg address and all
the other posts before your photo loaded on my iPhone.
It really messed up my ability to type this reply
The top of the photo looks nice though. Maybe in an
hour or so I will see the complete photo. Waiting for the
iPhone 5 next month with 4G. This old iPhone is too slow.

I just illustrated the absurd with absurdity :a1:

 

[Ford_6L_E350]

Maybe you need to add a link to this thread in the FAQ's under attachment size?

Mike

 

[Jeffrey-SMB]

Re: large attachments

I just illustrated the absurd with absurdity :a1:

Ya sure did, Dave. That image starts on my screen and goes right out the door!

 

[jage]

Makes replying a PITA too, however part of the reason for allowing attachments is for the less web savvy
folks who can't manage the gallery. Attaching is more like an email, and so less restrictive in order not to
put roadblocks down, but still limiting the problems to a smaller set of the whole. That's the theory anyway.