POTD Guide: Input, Please

[kallisti]

I too would keep to your original list. Never assume anything (like people will read the general site rules). Gentle reminders are good and the original list wasn't taking up that much space to start with....

 

[Phrasikleia]

Not all folks will think of this, and the mere idea of having to continuously answer the questions about, "How did you get that information... etc., etc..." seems like more cause for clutter than any posted exif info.

Good point. We do have to answer that question a lot. Some mention then about the existence of EXIF viewers and how to get them would be helpful. I was just giving my reasons for not posting settings below each of my photos.

I completely agree that EXIF data is important, which is why I'm sure to embed it in my images. I'm often disappointed by images that have nothing, not even after clicking through to flickr or wherever. So I'm all for encouraging people either to embed it or type it out, but I wouldn't insist on either method.

 

[Designer Dale]

I think this is a great idea, Dale, and thanks for taking it on! I'd leave the list the length you originally made it: 1. it keeps all the information together in one place, 2. someone might not have looked at the MR site-wide rules 3. We can't assume it will be ignored. If it's not in the sticky, then they certainly won't be paying attention to it! At least they will have read it and know what's expected.

Suggest that when you're talking about multi-quote you show a little pic of the button. This guide is for people who haven't done this much/before so we can't assume they know how.....

^^^ This is my thought on the list. It is better to have it all in one place even though it is a bit redundant. MR has an extensive FAQ/Rules thing but it's hard to follow. I've seen posts with little graphics or screenshots of that quote button imbeded in the text, but I don't know how to do that. I will put stuff like that in a PDF. I know how to do that...
BTW: The idea for this is from kallisti.

Both I guess. Adding a small description to the photo and exif looks like a good idea. And quoting it as a reference how it all started is interesting for historical reasons.

^^^ exif and descriptions seem to be getting the +1 treatment
I would rather reference the original post than copy/paste it or link it.

I too would keep to your original list. Never assume anything (like people will read the general site rules).

^^^ Full list seems to be +1, also.

Some mention then about the existence of EXIF viewers and how to get them would be helpful....

^^^ Perhaps a list of EXIF viewers and how to use them? I have been going through another thread on hosting sites and collecting links and such. There are more options for photo sharing than just Flickr, ImageShack and some Baltic server

Thanks for the input. I would like to have a draft to put in the March POTD thread. That might rile up some people and get more feedback. Can never have too much feedback. Ask Jimmy Hendrix.

Dale

A sample of the visual guide to uploading.

Does this Open OK ?

 

[NeGRit0]

Thanks for the input. I would like to have a draft to put in the March POTD thread. That might rile up some people and get more feedback. Can never have too much feedback. Ask Jimmy Hendrix.

Dale

A sample of the visual guide to uploading.

Does this Open OK ?

Nice @ Jimmy comment! Yes its uploaded fine. I just dl, and looks incredible so far. Very well put together Dale.

 

[pit29]

A sample of the visual guide to uploading.

Does this Open OK ?

Opens fine. Shows only IMG and not TIMG tags, though.

 

[Designer Dale]

Yes. This is for posting. I intended for posting with and quoting with [img]. Quoting with large images is really the only issue in the thread.

Posting with Flickr is nearly done and I will work on how to quote and multi-quote next.

Dale

 

[Doylem]

Hi Dale, your guide looks fine... though when I'm uploading a pic to ImageShack, I copy the 'direct link' string... then click the yellow 'insert image' button here on MR... then 'paste' the string... click 'OK' and I'm done. Deleting bits of code introduces the possibility of deleting too much or too little... Just a thought...

 

[Designer Dale]

I never knew how to use Direct Link. Until now.

Thanks. Now I can do it over again...

EDIT: Ran a test. That works great!

Here are the updated posting tutorials.

ImageShack

Flickr

Dale

 

[Designer Dale]

Current Draft R3

Welcome to the Users Guide for Photo of the Day. The POTD thread was the idea of iGary, and was first posted in May, 2006 it was converted to a monthly thread in November 2007 by Arn. POTD is one of the most popular picture groups on MacRumors and often exceeds 500 posts and 20,000 views per month.

Photo of the Day is meant to be a showcase for your best pictures. There is no limit to your gear, just your imagination. P&S and film cameras are welcome along with DSLRs. There are no themes like the Fortnightly Challenge and Weekly Contest.
No winners (or losers), either.

Policies

*One Photo per Day - Don't post multiple images in one message.

*Size - Post images that can be viewed without scrolling on most monitors. Maximum dimensions of 1400 X 800 pixels (width X height) are encouraged.

*Quote with Thumbnails - If you quote an image that has tags, convert them to [img] tags before replying. This will post your comment with a thumbnail and save space. Failure to [img] in quotes is quite a problem at this time. Let's fix that.

*Multi-Quote - To comment on several photos, click the Multi-Quote button. This puts all your comments in one post. The Moderators like that. Observe the [img] policy here, too (especially).

*SFW (Safe for Work) only - This is a site - wide rule. If you wouldn't show it in a public place, then it's NSFW (not safe for work). Think before you post.

Optional - Describe your photo.Tell what it is and where you took it. If you know the EXIF data of a photo, include it. Limit yourself to a maximum of the following fields:
Camera; ISO; Focal Length; Shutter/Aperture; Lens.

For step-by-step procedures there are PDF guides available below.

How to do everything [COLOR="Red"]<insert link>[/COLOR]
How to post with ImageShack and Flickr [COLOR="Red"]<insert link>[/COLOR]
How to quote with [img] tags [COLOR="Red"]<insert link>[/COLOR]
How to multi-quote [COLOR="Red"]<insert link>[/COLOR]

Dale (aka: Designer Dale)

 

[Phrasikleia]

Dale, you are such a champ for spearheading this project. I think you've managed to assemble a really helpful set of guidelines, and I'm sure I'm not alone in feeling great appreciation for the time and thought you've put into this thread.

 

[pdxflint]

Looks good, but I'd think about limiting the max. dimension (horizontal or vertical) to 1024px, which is really pretty good sized for viewing on the page. My monitor is 1440 wide, and a 1400px wide image would probably mean some scrolling due to the column on the left. I have normally used 800px wide in my posts. Lately I've been trying out 1024px wide, and the difference in size is quite apparent. I don't see the need to go much bigger than that for this thread. Just an opinion.

 

[maddagascar]

i definitely would love to see more people add description on how they took the photos, or include EXIF data on there photos.

maybe even somewhere in the guidelines a link on how to get EXIF viewer.

cause i learned soo much playing with settings after seeing what they did when other people took them.

 

[Ish]

Looks good to me! And many thanks!

 

[kallisti]

Excellent.

 

[Designer Dale]

Phraslikleia

^^^ Thanks.

Looks good, but I'd think about limiting the max. dimension (horizontal or vertical) to 1024px, which is really pretty good sized for viewing on the page.

^^^ I really have had no issues with width of posts except for folks who don't know how to do it at all. The only problem is in height. I have 1080 vertical to play with and portraits over 800 make me scroll. My original thought was just to limit height to 800. I'll look at one of my landscapes at 800 high and see how much space they take up.

maybe even somewhere in the guidelines a link on how to get EXIF viewer.

^^^ Obtaining and using one could be one tutorial. I want to get the rules thing together first. I wasn't joking with my How to Do Everything link mockup. When I understand Google Docks more I think I can set up a public folder to put all my tutorials in. One stop shopping.

Looks good to me! And many thanks!

^^^Thanks.

Excellent.

^^^ Ditto.

Dale

 

[Designer Dale]

Size Test

This is a from the camera landscape with my XSi. The W is 1709 and H is 1139. It was uploaded to ImageShack with Do Not Resize checked. Sooo if I posted this would you scream at me?:cool:
[IMG]http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/6735/treetubes1.jpg

Same photo at 1200W/800 high.

Dale

 

[Ish]

I'd never scream at you anyway

. . . but for your info I use a 17" MBP with the 1920 x 1200 screen (who knows, maybe they're all high res now) as my only computer and I can't see the whole of the 1139H picture without scrolling. Width wise I can just about fit in the picture and the sidebar with your name.

There's room to spare with the 800H. I went looking for a picture that was 1080 or 850 to compare but I can't find one at the moment. If I do I'll comment here but I'm about to call it a day and go to bed.

 

[Designer Dale]

The 13" Mac laptops are 1280x800. I will stick with a max height of 800.

Dale

 

[pdxflint]

I think you'd be better off, and it would be much simpler to simply limit the width of a shot to something... let the height fall where it may. There are too many different formats from panoramic to odd crops to 4x3 to 3x2 formats all posted. If we limit the width so it eliminates scrolling sideways, that would work for me. A little scrolling up or down isn't an issue with me, since my screen is much shorter than it is wide, and a portrait style shot would have to be pretty small for me to not have to do some up or down scrolling anyway.

Typically, 1024px wide in dSLRs will make the height around 680px, and if you just reversed that for portrait orientation, even with a width only 680px, most of us will have to scroll a bit up or down. I can live with that. It still fits within the overall forum web page design without stretching anything on most screens today.

 

[Designer Dale]

I think you'd be better off, and it would be much simpler to simply limit the width of a shot to something... let the height fall where it may. There are too many different formats from panoramic to odd crops to 4x3 to 3x2 formats all posted. If we limit the width so it eliminates scrolling sideways, that would work for me. A little scrolling up or down isn't an issue with me, since my screen is much shorter than it is wide, and a portrait style shot would have to be pretty small for me to not have to do some up or down scrolling anyway.

Typically, 1024px wide in dSLRs will make the height around 680px, and if you just reversed that for portrait orientation, even with a width only 680px, most of us will have to scroll a bit up or down. I can live with that. It still fits within the overall forum web page design without stretching anything on most screens today.

The trouble with limiting width is that width and height don't trade places between portrait and landscape. One has a long width and the other has a short width. Horizontal is width and vertical is height no matter what the ratio is. A portrait and a landscape with matching heights will both fit on any screen. If they have matching widths it's very different. None of us would ever size a portrait out like this, but who knows? Most photos in the forum have the same ratio. Panoramas and odd crops will just happen, but not that often.

Dale

 

[TheReef]

I think you'd be better off, and it would be much simpler to simply limit the width of a shot to something... let the height fall where it may. There are too many different formats from panoramic to odd crops to 4x3 to 3x2 formats all posted. If we limit the width so it eliminates scrolling sideways, that would work for me. A little scrolling up or down isn't an issue with me, since my screen is much shorter than it is wide, and a portrait style shot would have to be pretty small for me to not have to do some up or down scrolling anyway.

Typically, 1024px wide in dSLRs will make the height around 680px, and if you just reversed that for portrait orientation, even with a width only 680px, most of us will have to scroll a bit up or down. I can live with that. It still fits within the overall forum web page design without stretching anything on most screens today.

This sounds good, 1024px width just fits for those with 13" MacBooks (accounting for the forum layout on the left), and for height scrolling vertically goes with the natural flow anyway...that said I try to avoid posting tall pictures.

But for those who did want to view the whole image in this scenario, you can use [command -] to shrink the size of images on the page momentarily, and [command +] to return to regular size (this works in FireFox and Safari).

 

[Designer Dale]

I pulled five portrait and five landscape shots from POTD.

Portrait H 800;688;761;*1024;*1024
Landscape H 665; 532; 668; 680; 680

Portrait W 600; 471; 507; *681; *680
Landscape W 1000; 800; 1024; 889; 1024

The starred portraits made me scroll on my 1920x1080 HD Samsung.

How about limit width of landscapes to 1024 and portraits to 680? I needed one page to get the landscapes and four pages to find five portraits.

Dale

EDIT: I would like to get the text part of this on the first page of March POTD. That is about 19 hours from now GMT.

 

[gnd]

I don't want to rain on your parade, but I've seen trigger happy moderators come through POTD and add Timg tags to every photo larger than 600 pixels at the long end ...

 

[Designer Dale]

I know. The site wide rule is large images. I should just omit that line and just let folks post as they do now, which is for the most part OK. I don't really have difficulty viewing any images, and dropping that could keep me out of the dog house with the mods. I never did ask permission to do this.
I do remember when size was an issue with officials.

EDIT: I just went through the sticky by FirstApple, the Picture Threads... one and none of the photo threads have an official statement on image size, so I'm going to delete it from mine (ours). I don't want to set a precedent.

Dale

 

[TheReef]

^For what it's worth here's a thread I created last year re POTD and image sizes.

Moderators - Photo of the Day and TIMGS

Basically they say they try to be more lenient with image sizes in the photography forum, perhaps they'll take note of this thread and your proposed guidelines for POTD.


It's looking good Dale, many thanks for taking the time mate.