Photo of the Day (January 2008)

[Carl Abudephane]

.

 

[zioxide]

Agreed.

However... there's no reason in the world that a poster needs to post a enormous image when a thumbnailed image that is linked to their enormous image would suffice. Someone scrolls through, sees one(s) they like, click on the linked image. This is the Photo of the Day, not the Bandwidth Hog of the Day thread, ya?

Easy. Clean. Neat.

Please use the tags people, that's what they are there for.[/QUOTE]

Like I said before, [img] and [img] are going to use the same amount of bandwidth. When you use [img], it loads the full large image and your browser resizes it down anyways. So whether you use [img] or [img], your browser is still loading the exact same file. Therefore, using [img] has no advantage when it comes to bandwidth.

The only advantage [img] has is it avoids stretching out the page and making you scroll horizontally. However, most of the photos I've seen in this thread aren't [i]enormously[/i] wide. I'd say most of them are less than 800px wide, which seems fine. I think there should be a rule put in place saying [img] is required for images over x pixels wide (something like 800).

 

[valdore]

Three tripod mounted RAWs // HDR
Shutter: varied
Aperture: f/12.9
Focal Length: 17mm
ISO 100

 

[Martin C]

And this matters why?

Have patience.

And contrary to popular myth, there are still people in this world stuck with dial-up.

Because I'd like some sort of policy on this so I know what size to upload my images. That's why.

I believe that zioxide mentioned in the December thread that even if users are on slower connections (i.e. dial-up), using TIMG tags does not make the image load any faster.

EDIT: See zioxide's post on this page for a better explanation of what I attempted to describe (#77).

I think there should be a rule put in place saying is required for images over x pixels wide (something like 800).[/QUOTE]
I completely agree.

[quote="xUKHCx, post: 4686821"]Agreed.

I regularly view this thread and have been doing so for a long time. It is perhaps why I have been the main moderator editing the pictures recently because I have been viewing this thread to look at the pictures.

If you want to see what it can become like look at this [URL="https://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=4321946#post4321946"]page[/URL] as an example.

It is a matter that we are looking into.[/QUOTE]
Thank you for replying. Let us know when you, along with the other staff members have come to a point on a picture size policy for this thread. I apologize for my severity towards you in my previous posts.

[quote="valdore, post: 4687426"][url]http://www.valdorephoto.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/garmentdist.jpg[/url][/QUOTE]
Wonderful HDR valdore. I have always enjoyed your urban HDR work.

 

[EricNau]

And scroll up this page to see the size of some these photos. Two of them, posted by squeeks and LillieDesigns, are larger than what I have previously posted. I don't see any post edits on those though. It's extremely inconsistent. This new moderator (who hasn't posted once in this thread might I add) should have left the thread as it has always been rather than trying to do something beneficial, but instead doing it randomly at the inconvenience of several members who use this thread often.

In what way do you feel inconvenienced? Your images were resized - not removed - in order to help those with smaller screens, without taking anything away from the thread. Really, you should thank the moderators.

There is really no standard width for websites, with many of them reformatting to the size of the browser window...

For websites that don't automatically resize, 1000 pixels is generally considered the maximum width by webmasters (many are much smaller, in fact).

 

[Martin C]

In what way do you feel inconvenienced? Your images were resized - not removed - in order to help those with smaller screens, without taking anything away from the thread. Really, you should thank the moderators.

For websites that don't automatically resize, 1000 pixels is generally considered the maximum width by webmasters (many are much smaller, in fact).

I am inconvenienced because it forces other users to link away from MR to view my photo to its fullest extend. All I am asking for is some sort of policy on what size to keep photos so that this random TIMG tagging ceases. I'm pretty sure that a photo 1000 pixels wide covers every machine in the past 5+ years excluding the 12-inch notebooks.

I'll gladly resize my images, just tell me the requirements.

 

[seniorstinky]

Road to Nowhere

Camera: Canon EOS 40D
Exposure: 0.002 sec (1/640)
Aperture: f/7.1
Focal Length: 50 mm
ISO Speed: 200

 

[DJMastaWes]

Haven't had time to get out, seeing as how I'm studying for my upcoming exams.

 

[Mark Morb]

One from a couple of days ago....I've framed it so that it makes a good desktop image..

 

[CrackedButter]

Thank you so much for that. Four words that have made me feel a lot better this terribly cold evening.
When I started posting just a few weeks ago I was pretty chuffed about some of my abstract pictures and felt, after a goodly time of just lookin' in at the photography thread, that I could start posting some of 'em.
Although I've posted a few 'conventional' shots, it's the abstracts that interest me right now but for whatever reason, since starting to post 'em, I've suddenly started to find it difficult finding many that I feel comfortable even considering.
I don't fully know why; perhaps it's simply that there is a lot of good stuff posted here and my abstract pictures don't fit into that mould of image in any way and so .....
... thanks for your kind words.
And, coincidentally, you have the Bruce Lee quote in your signature!
'Add what is uniquely your own'. Maybe I simply needed to read those few words. In my mid-twenties I was taught Kick-boxing by a man by the name of Jimmy, from Buckley, Wales. A wonderful, gentle and caring man who was also hard-as-nails and knew his way 'round many different fighting disciplines. He had two idols : Muhammad Ali and Bruce Lee. So yeah,
'Add what is uniquely your own.'
I will.
Be Well. C.

I really like abstract images, I even practice them myself, I have a few here: http://flickr.com/photos/crackedbutter/page3/ down into the middle of the page.

One from a couple of days ago....I've framed it so that it makes a good desktop image..

http://www.synthpunkdiscopanzer.co.uk/store/pics/IMGP0426.jpg

That image could do with some level adjustments, get some black and white into the image, it looks too grey. Unless that is your intention. Here it is with the adjustments.

 

[Carl Abudephane]

.

 

[Doylem]

[/QUOTE]

Erm... not sure about levels... but it could have been improved 'in-camera' by taking the shot when the light wasn't so flat and unrevealing...

 

[IscariotJ]

First post in a long while, really have to get back into shooting/posting.

MartinC, very nice shot.

freebooter, love the mist...

valdore, stunning HDR's.

Here's my meagre contribution. Taken on Boxing Day at Tintagel.

 

[Evangelion]

Like I said before, and [img] are going to use the same amount of bandwidth. When you use [img], it loads the full large image and your browser resizes it down anyways. So whether you use [img] or [img], your browser is still loading the exact same file. Therefore, using [img] has no advantage when it comes to bandwidth.

The only advantage [img] has is it avoids stretching out the page and making you scroll horizontally. However, most of the photos I've seen in this thread aren't [i]enormously[/i] wide. I'd say most of them are less than 800px wide, which seems fine. I think there should be a rule put in place saying [img] is required for images over x pixels wide (something like 800).[/QUOTE]

All this discussion on how to post images just begs the question: why not simply attach the image to the post? That's what I have done. That way the reader can see a small "preview" of the image, and if he likes what he's seeing, he could click the attachment and see the bigger version of the picture.

Using IMG-tags requires that the picture is located somewhere else in the web, and you merely link to it in the post. Well, I don't have my pictures elsewhere, so attaching is just about the only option left. Are there any downsides in attaching images, as opposed to IMG-linking to them?

 

[CrackedButter]

PolarBearNocturnal

I'm reminded of fairgrounds and fireworks. Abstract stuff can be anything, hence the love!

 

[Doylem]

Sunderland Point, on the Lancashire coast: a handful of houses cut off twice a day by the tides. Used to be a major port, profiting from the slave tade; now there are just ghosts and memories and wildfowl on the mudflats. One of those winter days when the sky is like a water-colour wash...

 

[thr33face]

this was 5am after celebrating the new year.

 

[carlgo]

All this discussion on how to post images just begs the question: why not simply attach the image to the post? That's what I have done. That way the reader can see a small "preview" of the image, and if he likes what he's seeing, he could click the attachment and see the bigger version of the picture.

Using IMG-tags requires that the picture is located somewhere else in the web, and you merely link to it in the post. Well, I don't have my pictures elsewhere, so attaching is just about the only option left. Are there any downsides in attaching images, as opposed to IMG-linking to them?

I also have no other choice, no other site. I looked all over this site and tried all sorts of things with the attachment and image icons and it finally showed up as a thumbnail. I had no idea of what the size the images should be.

It would be nice to just be able to drag an image into the post and have it automatically sized, hopefully by a program so that the mods didn't have to spend all day doing mysterious things with some of the photos. It would level the field in that elusive democratic way.

And that would be easier for me than having to play around with sizing and all that.

 

[baby duck monge]

Are there any downsides in attaching images, as opposed to IMG-linking to them?

For one you might want to have a repository for all your images on another site, and save yourself the trouble of uploading twice. You may also want to upload full-res images, but not have those images available to others who may want to... borrow them. You may want to post images at a higher quality than this forum allows with its file size restrictions for uploads (if your image has a lot of detail or had extensive PP work done on it). You might want to keep your images on a site that has a specific type of rights management or who specializes in photography. And finally, I think at some point there was a limit to the amount of server space here you could use for attachments.

There are lots of reasons for wanting to upload somewhere else and link back here.

<Edit>
I just realized that this will be my last post as a 65832. How sad. Oh well, 68000 here I come!
</Edit>

 

[yellow]

Like I said before, and [img] are going to use the same amount of bandwidth. When you use [img], it loads the full large image and your browser resizes it down anyways. So whether you use [img] or [img], your browser is still loading the exact same file. Therefore, using [img] has no advantage when it comes to bandwidth.

The only advantage [img] has is it avoids stretching out the page and making you scroll horizontally. However, most of the photos I've seen in this thread aren't [i]enormously[/i] wide. I'd say most of them are less than 800px wide, which seems fine. I think there should be a rule put in place saying [img] is required for images over x pixels wide (something like 800).[/QUOTE]

You are absolutely correct. I did not realize that there was no difference, but now I do.

So, I can only fall back on the 'neat, clean' aspect of TIMG vs IMG, though apparently it will [I]stretch[/I] smaller images. Which is unfortunate.

 

[jordygreen]

Self Portrait try with my new tripod.

 

[Educ8r]

Roosting

 

[Mark Morb]

Erm... not sure about levels... but it could have been improved 'in-camera' by taking the shot when the light wasn't so flat and unrevealing... [/QUOTE]

Couldn't agree more, but it was a dull overcast grey day. Very difficult to get any contrast in the shot (or any others I took that day), couldn't get very close to the subject either.
I'm going back when the light is better...thanks for the comments

 

[valdore]

One handheld RAW // HDR
Shutter: 1/125
Aperture: f.8.0
Focal Length: 17mm
ISO 100

 

[Jim61]

new generation