New 150Kb now 300 KB Image Size Limit for Uploading [Archive]

raid

01-21-2007, 12:14

I used to upload images with smaller sizes (around 100Kb) for critique sessions, but several RFF members askedme touplaod larger sized images so that they could see more details. Imagine mu surprise today when I tried to upload an image with size 625Kband it was rejected. There is now a reduction in allowable image size for uploading within a thread from 1000Kb to 1/8 of that size to 150Kb. I used to think that such a size was much too small and that only "smaller" [in membership] websites had to limit their members to around 100Kb images (such as nelsonfoto.com), but it seems that our RFF website also is going that route with a 150Kb limit. I don't feel good about this change. At least, allow a 400Kb~500Kb limit.

Maybe Jorge can give us the reasons to go that route suddenly.

Raid

back alley

01-21-2007, 12:17

there is already a thread about this, i think frank started it.

and it is best to ask jorge directly (as i already stated to you) as he does not read all the threads.

and it would be best to put this sort of thread in the feedback section if you seek info about the site itself.

joe

raid

01-21-2007, 12:36

there is already a thread about this, i think frank tarted it.

and it is best to ask jorge directly (as i already stated to you) as he does not read all the threads.

and it would be best to put this sort of thread in the feedback section if you seek info about the site itself.

joe

Joe,

I searched for a feedback section and did not find one. Of course, such a section wouldbe best suited here.

I sent Jorge a pm on another issue several days ago and I have not received back a response. I don't mind sending him another pm on this issue, but he may be too busy to respond. The reason for my posting was also to get feedback from RFF members. I want to know if a small image rule is actually OK or not. Jorge's response alone would not give me that feedback.

Since Frank already has started a thread on this issue, it is also good that I go there to read what is being discussed.

Raid

boilerdoc2

01-23-2007, 06:46

Not sure that big files are needed for a website picture. There has to be some sort of limit to prevent crashes. If you need to upload the bigger files an upgrade in membership to Premium allows that.
Steve

raid

01-23-2007, 07:41

Steve: I am a paying member but I still do not see any larger file limit.

Raid

Keith

01-23-2007, 07:49

Perhaps it's a quirk with the system Raid ... I went to upload a 250 k file the other day and it was rejected and I'm also a paid member. I would have thought that if the limit had been changed suddenly Jorge would have notified us? :confused:

raid

01-23-2007, 08:14

Keith,
I feel that a change was made due to changes in how this website is being managed or because of space requirements regardless of the managing directions. Still, it would have been nice to be notified here that such a change was made.

Raid

RayPA

01-23-2007, 08:19

Yeah, I just checked and the attachment size is 150kb, now. :mad: That's not a good change. I'm not certain what the previous limit was, but I'm sure I would have bumped into it if it was 150kb! Is there an inline image posting limit?

Is this the first of the changes/enhancements for RangefinderQuest? ;)

.

GeroV

01-23-2007, 08:20

I thought the limit, at least for paying members, was 250k, at least it was last week when I uploaded a couple of images, and that seems a decent size, although sometimes it would be nice to look at detail in a larger image. I would link to my pbase gallery in that case.

lZr

01-23-2007, 08:23

Also the upload section is now limited to 3 files at most

ampguy

01-23-2007, 08:35

I don't use the gallery here, even the previous larger file size limit was imposing for me.

However, for the critiques Ray, I think you'll need to modify the rules to allow for linked higher res images.

Smugmug is a good photo hosting site with unlimited photos, and up to 8Mb/48Mp at $40/yr. (basic) with 6Gb bw, and uses distributed storage (Amazon's S3 service) so your data is on RAID 5 in multiple states, though I would still highly recommend you keep local multiple copies of all your work.

RayPA

01-23-2007, 09:01

...

However, for the critiques Ray, I think you'll need to modify the rules to allow for linked higher res images.

...

We may have to start using links to the Gallery instead of attachments . Is it just my personal settings or is the the IMG inline code option gone (set to off) too?

.

back alley

01-23-2007, 09:07

i posted a question to the powers that be about the image size change.

video at 11!
:)

ampguy

01-23-2007, 09:19

IMG testing:

below wrapped in [URL]

http://www.tedm.com/jfood/teabox.JPG

below wrapped in

[IMG]http://www.tedm.com/jfood/teabox.JPG

appears IMG's are off, but links still work, so photos can be linked on personal sites, flickr, facebook, google/picasa webshare, etc.

I'd expect Stephen or Jorge to update us soon, I'm sure they're busy now transitioning the thing. Maybe there is some "premium+" level that makes sense to keep some storage within RFF, or Smugmug has an API...

I'd pay a few bucks extra to keep or get more storage here, and that's just in photo attachments. The 150kb, if it stays, means I'd have to open and modify every image from my digicam, while the previous size settings let me set my digicam on a low res for sale items, etc., and quickly post as is here.

Also, could potentially add value of the site, having unique content stored at RFF.

QUOTE=RayPA]We may have to start using links to the Gallery instead of attachments . Is it just my personal settings or is the the IMG inline code option gone (set to off) too?

.[/QUOTE]

back alley

01-23-2007, 09:23

at the bottom of each page, in the 'posting rules' box you can see what is on or off.
img is not 'on' in all sections.
it is 'off' in this section.

joe

MP Guy

01-23-2007, 09:31

ampguy

01-23-2007, 09:43

Would this be possible - keep new small file size limit in postings if you have to, but allow users to upload big files, then just squeeze them down like that auction site, and some of the social networking sites, even flickr to a ridiculously small but still viewable image?

That way I don't have to open images in an editor, shrink and upload, I can just upload, and let the forum sw reduce to whatever? I think even my kids lowest rez digicam still creates ~200kb files.

The paid members get the big file upload in the gallery. I reduced the file upload size for attachments because of the number of files being saved. If it becomes too much of a pain, I will increase it some.

raid

01-23-2007, 09:57

Jorge: An increase in file size is needed for critique sessions so that images can be seen better. Not many images are uploaded in such sessions, as you know. Thanks.

Raid

back alley

01-23-2007, 10:05

can someone explain this to me...

my understanding is that maximum internet resolution is at 72dpi.
if so, how will a larger file size help for things like photo critiques or lens evals? is there actually more info getting onto the screen?
sorry if this is basic but i don't get it.

many thanks for your patience.
joe

Kim Coxon

01-23-2007, 10:18

72dpi is a "density", it has little to do with the file size. If you download a 150Kb file at 72dpi and open it, you would see it at a certain size on the screen. Using any picture viewer, you could look at it at 144dpi but it would be half the size. Another way to look at it, is that if you open a 500kb file, it might not fir on the screen. However, most browser automaticaaly resize the frame to fit your monitor but at the same time the dpi or density increases giving better resolution and detail.

Kim

can someone explain this to me...

my understanding is that maximum internet resolution is at 72dpi.
if so, how will a larger file size help for things like photo critiques or lens evals? is there actually more info getting onto the screen?
sorry if this is basic but i don't get it.

many thanks for your patience.
joe

ampguy

01-23-2007, 10:28

digital images have no dpi, it is a term used by imaging programs that have to calculate that based on what they somewhere else think is the actual print size.

72 is common, but so is 96dpi or user defined with most browsers. larger file sizes allow more bits per pixel, and more pixels per real estate mean higher resolution. Firefox 2 and probably IE let you measure a line on your monitor and enter a custom #.

Ray's critiques, IIRC requested ~8" wide photos, at around 80-ish dpi screen display, which means I wouldn't have to use print quality 300dpi sizes for the file upload, but I also wouldn't want to go much more than 1/3rd or so below that before the images start to degrade badly.

Also, I don't think there was anything in Ray's guidelines that excluded the ability to print out the images to critique by taking the best possible file to walgreens, costco, or using your own printer, in any of those cases, you'd want 200-300+dpi.

can someone explain this to me...

my understanding is that maximum internet resolution is at 72dpi.
if so, how will a larger file size help for things like photo critiques or lens evals? is there actually more info getting onto the screen?
sorry if this is basic but i don't get it.

many thanks for your patience.
joe

Pherdinand

01-23-2007, 10:41

Joe, file size has not much to do with resolution, and none of the two have much to do with "72 dpi". The 72 dpi is a "magic"number that does not make any sense. It's about the number of pixels that a normal computer monitor can show (if you put a ruler, or your thumb, on the screen, it will cover 72 pixels).
Resolution/details is, in fact, total number of pixels (i'm talking about the resolution of an minage file, not the resolution of a Leitz lens :P) that make up a digital image. It is NOT a dpi value, as Kim says "dpi" alias dots per inch is a pixel density. SHould be called "ppi" in fact, being about pixels and not dots when we talk about images on the screen.

File size, like 150 kbytes, depends of course on the total number of pixels, BUT,m depends on a lot more. Like, compression level. Raw "bitmap" type images take every pixel and its colour values; if there's a 24-bit colour image, this means 3 bytes per pixel. A 5-megapixel bitmap images will be about 15 megabytes. A 8-bit grayscale will be only 5 megabytes.
JPEG images can be compressed to different levels. A compression of 50-80 % can be reached without any visible loss of quality on the image. The more details the image has, the less compressible it is.

Now here's why I agree with Raid's oppinion.
To have a properly viewable image on the screen, it should be at least 800 pixels long on the larger side. Figure 800x500 pixels, that is 0.4 megapixels. 1.2 megabytes thus. To make a 150Kbyte jpeg out of this, one needs a compression of almost 90%. Some images will look like crap, especially the ones with fine gradations like sky, or the ones with very sharp lines; the finest details will be lost.
I usually try to get in the 200K limit but in many cases it is difficult without having visible loss of quality.

Of course, a marvellous shot will be marvellous with a bad resolution as well.:)

rogue_designer

01-23-2007, 10:46

for monochrome images, I can get under the 150 without visible artifacts for images 650px on the long side.

for color, I need to keep them below 500px on the long side to avoid compression artifacts.

Good thing I like B&W

I don't mind linking from an external web location (when that's allowed) - my only issue is that I access quite a lot from work, and the firewall here blocks images hosted on smugmug, photobucket, and flikr. So I don't get to see many of your wonderful posts until I get home (later and later these days).

lZr

01-23-2007, 10:57

Saving for web (72 ppi) i upload 60 to 80 kb files in the gallery, sized 700 x 450 approx.

Bingley

01-23-2007, 11:02

I'm a relatively new member here, but the sudden change to a 150kb limit on uploads caught me by surprise, too. I usually work in color negs, and have them scanned on to a CD when I get film developed. I then load selected .jpg files on to my home computer and re-size them using Photoshop or an HP photo viewer program. Previously, simply resizing to a standard size for emailing was sufficient, and I could upload the resized file to a post, where it would appear as a thumbnail that would enlarge to a decent size when you clicked on it. Since the 150kb limit, however, it's been a real struggle to shrink .jpg files down to the limit, and when the thumbnails appear and you click on them they either don't open at all or open and show a tiny image. This is a long-winded way of saying that some relaxation in the 150kb limit would be much appreciated.
Thanks

ampguy

01-23-2007, 11:15

I just measured in firefox under tools/options/content/fonts&colors/advanced, and when I measure the line it puts up, it tells me my monitor is 120dpi, which makes sense, it's a budget ~15" dell that comes up at 1440x900.

However, I try to do the critiques on an old 19" analog monitor since I can fine tune the brightness and contrast with these big huge knobs, and that monitor is like 1280x1024 so probably some smaller dpi.

So don't get too excited anyone, but my thumb on this monitor is going to be more like 200 "dpi" ;)

Joe, file size has not much to do with resolution, and none of the two have much to do with "72 dpi". The 72 dpi is a "magic"number that does not make any sense. It's about the number of pixels that a normal computer monitor can show (if you put a ruler, or your thumb, on the screen, it will cover 72 pixels).
Resolution/details is, in fact, total number of pixels (i'm talking about the resolution of an minage file, not the resolution of a Leitz lens :P) that make up a digital image. It is NOT a dpi value, as Kim says "dpi" alias dots per inch is a pixel density. SHould be called "ppi" in fact, being about pixels and not dots when we talk about images on the screen.

File size, like 150 kbytes, depends of course on the total number of pixels, BUT,m depends on a lot more. Like, compression level. Raw "bitmap" type images take every pixel and its colour values; if there's a 24-bit colour image, this means 3 bytes per pixel. A 5-megapixel bitmap images will be about 15 megabytes. A 8-bit grayscale will be only 5 megabytes.
JPEG images can be compressed to different levels. A compression of 50-80 % can be reached without any visible loss of quality on the image. The more details the image has, the less compressible it is.

Now here's why I agree with Raid's oppinion.
To have a properly viewable image on the screen, it should be at least 800 pixels long on the larger side. Figure 800x500 pixels, that is 0.4 megapixels. 1.2 megabytes thus. To make a 150Kbyte jpeg out of this, one needs a compression of almost 90%. Some images will look like crap, especially the ones with fine gradations like sky, or the ones with very sharp lines; the finest details will be lost.
I usually try to get in the 200K limit but in many cases it is difficult without having visible loss of quality.

Of course, a marvellous shot will be marvellous with a bad resolution as well.:)

raid

01-23-2007, 17:30

From the above [useful] discussion it seems that having a capability to upload images with file size of about 1MB would be reasonable and desirable for the rather limited number of uploaded images in critique sessions.

Raid

FrankS

01-23-2007, 17:50

raid

01-23-2007, 18:47

Frank: Yes, but is this really a thing that should happen here?

Raid

back alley

01-23-2007, 18:50

raid, you make it sound like we are on holy ground.
:)

back alley

01-23-2007, 18:52

my thanks to all who attempted to enlighten me.

i have a brain that very slowly lets small bits of math related info in.
very frustrating...

joe

01-23-2007, 18:56

I noticed this reduction in file size uploads last week when I was posting some Contax stuff. I found that I can post 600X900 whatevers if I reduce the quality (i guess that's compression?) to about medium, on my software (Elements v2), resulting in the necessay file size of less than 150kb.

You know...this saves money. Less bandwidth, less drive space, less costs to running RFF. Could mean RFF lives longer. Could mean anything.

Then again, it must be nice for the dial-up crowd to be able to read a thread in under 2 hours.

dcsang

01-23-2007, 19:10

I strongly suggest everyone review the PDF in the following link:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26335

The author is quite the genius I hear... :D

Dave

RayPA

01-24-2007, 07:31

The paid members get the big file upload in the gallery. I reduced the file upload size for attachments because of the number of files being saved. If it becomes too much of a pain, I will increase it some.

Jorge, any hint of when this might occur? I'd like to update the Critique Guidelines.

Dave: I'll probably drop a link in the guidelines directly to your PDF, if that's OK. It looks useful to those that don't know how to adjust size/resolution.

:)

dcsang

01-24-2007, 07:44

raid

01-24-2007, 07:48

raid, you make it sound like we are on holy ground.
:)

Joe: I think highly of this site and the people who created and run this site. It is not holy though; once in a while crap happens. :-)

Raid

RayPA

01-24-2007, 08:41

Sure Ray.. go ahead :)

I just wonder why, when we're dealing in terms of pixels and not inches, that people think they need to have larger file sizes simply because there's enough space available.

I've heard every excuse in the book from end users as I moderate a couple photography communities on LiveJournal. From "You're stifling my creativity!" to "I prefer less compression in my images". None have convinced me that, for a fairly large image (i.e. 750 x 500), the file size must be larger than 125kb.

Dave

Thanks, Dave.

Basically, you're right. I think it's just a workflow issue. I think a lot of people prefer to do PS work on higher-quality files. I still do PS work after resizing to "72-dpi," but only on high quality files. If I save out to a medium quality file, and want to make a change (PS-wise) I just trash the file and go back to the higher quality version. That means more files/image, which is where I think most of the resistance/kickback comes from. Saving out to a lower quality is just something we'll have to do. I rarely do it myself. I always intend to, but I rarely do.

:)

ampguy

01-24-2007, 08:47

Which LJ photo communities do you moderate? I know an awesome photographer who posts there sometimes.

Sure Ray.. go ahead :)

I just wonder why, when we're dealing in terms of pixels and not inches, that people think they need to have larger file sizes simply because there's enough space available.

I've heard every excuse in the book from end users as I moderate a couple photography communities on LiveJournal. From "You're stifling my creativity!" to "I prefer less compression in my images". None have convinced me that, for a fairly large image (i.e. 750 x 500), the file size must be larger than 125kb.

Dave

Avotius

01-26-2007, 20:01

I just tried to upload to my gallery, that 150 size limit is driving me nuts. The amount of compression and artifacts is simply unacceptable for decent image quality. Please whoever is in charge do something about it, even if its a minor tweek, 200k even, that gives a lot of leway for the images still, 150 is just too small though...if I could pay and uplaod larger images I would but I cant so all I can do is apeal to someone to up the limit a hair.

dcsang

01-26-2007, 20:08

RayPA

01-26-2007, 20:26

As the English would say..
Bollocks

150kb is just fine - send me the image to my gmail acct: the(dot)nexus(at)gmail(dot)com

I'll convert and do it for you.

Dave

Sure it's possible to do, and "just fine," but in fairness to Avotius, unless you change your workflow and correct/plan for a web-sized (<150kb) output there is a difference between a higher quality image and the same image saved out to medium quality. I tried it out yesterday. I worked on a 72 dpi/high quality image and then saved the out to medium quality. The result was a very distinct difference.

Jorge said that he would increase the current 150kb limit. We're waiting. :)

.

RayPA

01-26-2007, 20:54

Sure it's possible to do, and "just fine," but in fairness to Avotius, unless you change your workflow and correct/plan for a web-sized (<150kb) output there is a difference between a higher quality image and the same image saved out to medium quality. I tried it out yesterday. I worked on a 72 dpi/high quality image and then saved the out to medium quality. The result was a very distinct difference.

Jorge said that he would increase the current 150kb limit. We're waiting. :)

.

Now that I've posted this. I have to admit I just posted the two images to my pBase site and honestly...I can't see the same difference that I see between the two images in Photoshop. Can anyone else see a difference? See Here (http://www.pbase.com/harpman/here).

.

ampguy

01-26-2007, 21:15

If there is demand for low bandwidth critiques, how about making it a theme?

Default img is on in critiques, so it would not burden the site at all for critiques to load inline img's until/unless thumnail sizes are increased.

It's fine that Dave thinks his mega compression with $700 software is "good enough", but it's silly for him to expect others to accept this.

Some folks are happy with 128kbps mp3 audio, and many others are not. Why resort to name calling to folks who happen to disagree?

btw, my screen I'm typing on now is 120dpi, not 72.

Now that I've posted this. I have to admit I just posted the two images to my pBase site and honestly...I can't see the same difference that I see between the two images in Photoshop. Can anyone else see a difference? See Here (http://www.pbase.com/harpman/here).

.

Rich Silfver

01-26-2007, 21:28

150K is a pretty normal size limit for photos posted to online galleries/critique board and I've personally never had a problem creating 750-800 wide images that were 150K or less - without significant (read: visible on a screen) loss of detail.

Seems like a good file size and should significantly reduce the storage cost. Uploading a file of 6-700K for online viewing at a fan-based forum seems like extreme overkill.

dcsang

01-26-2007, 21:31

Seeing as how there is a difference that can be seen; would you care to point out those differences; that is, without blowing up the image as it currently exists (i.e. leave the image size as Ray has uploaded and point out the differences in the image - do not blow up the image to find those differences either)

I'd be happy to upload a full res 5D image here just so people can see how crisp and sharp etc. etc. etc. the image is but really, it doesn't do anyone any good and, in the end, it sucks bandwidth.

While most of us do have broadband network connectivity, there are, like it or not, many folks who do not. As such, you still have to accommodate them.

If you feel that 300dpi is appropriate, then please, upload 300dpi images.

Perhaps Jorge would be better off not setting a "kb" limit so much as a "pixel" limit. That being a limit on image dimensions vs file size.

And btw, one does not need "$700 software" to resize an image. It's quite simple to do with freeware or even image software that comes with many cameras - Adobe Elements is a whopping $99 for the full version and it can do resizing. $99 too much? Hey, use Google and check out some of the shareware that's out there.. Photolightning can do the resizing and much more and it costs $40 - so Photoshop is not a requirement but it just happens that's what the "standard" is for professionals.

Dave

ampguy

01-26-2007, 21:53

Hi guys,

I'm not here to argue. If you're happy with 8" wide (long side) images at 150kb, more power to you.

I'm not, and I do see the difference in quality on screen.

The rules state they are to be images posted here, not img'd and hosted elsewhere (although img is *enabled* in these forums, and would cost RFF less than storing on RFF).

Has anyone asked for a low res, low bandwidth critique theme for dial-up? If they have, there is no reason to not have them, but the rules now allow for 8" photos. For me, 150kb for 8" photos degrades the quality significantly.

Do you guys promoting thumbnail sized images, even use the critiques? Ever used color? Didn't think so.

Dougg

01-26-2007, 22:55

My trouble with the 150k limit is that for some time now I've been keeping my files intended for upload between 150k and 160k, so I'll have a bunch of re-editing to do. :( I also note that if I've already uploaded the file elsewhere in RFF, the system points to the old location and prevents me from uploading it again... makes sense if storage space is getting tighter.

ClaremontPhoto

01-27-2007, 00:51

I have images ready for upload above 150kB too and am less then satisfied that each one will need reworking.

Or maybe i'll just forget it and not upload.

Pherdinand

01-27-2007, 11:21

Can anyone else see a difference? See Here (http://www.pbase.com/harpman/here).

.

The net on the second one is much less sharp, especially on the bottom half of the image. On the top half, there's the usual weird JPG compression artifact between the wires. just look under the letter M.

Sure 150kb is fine for 8-bit BW at a smallish size with very careful compression.

Pherdinand

01-27-2007, 11:25

Makes no sense what you pro-150K guys are arguing about. Nobody wants the possibility to upload fuill frame DSLR (or M*, if you prefer) images, not even 6-700K files.
The difference between 150k and 250k is already considerable.
Better don't put an "unlimited" portfolio option and allow for bigger file sizes, i would say. On some point, it's quality against quantity.

Pherdinand

01-27-2007, 11:26

What the ****, why is M-eight a bad word?

MP Guy

01-27-2007, 11:33

This will change soon.

ClaremontPhoto

01-27-2007, 11:49

Jorge: thank you. (Assuming that'change' means increase and not decrease!)

CameraQuest

01-27-2007, 11:57

the problem with large file sizes is their effect on server speed, bandwidth, and long term storage.

After talking it over with George, the upload file size has been incrased to 300KB, but it is not going back up to the old limit.

Stephen

ClaremontPhoto

01-27-2007, 11:59

Stephen: 300kB sounds fine to me here. Thank you.

Avotius

01-27-2007, 12:13

300 is great, 200 would have been fine too, thanks

jmilkins

01-27-2007, 12:26

HI folks
I used to have trouble sometimes using PS to resize the image - No probs now, as I understand the workflow better.

But someone on this forum mentioned Infranview freeware which is very easy and quick. http://www.irfanview.com/

Probably does the same as PS but the GUI seems easier. Generally, I do any manipulation first in PS, save a higher res printable file to A3 size if it's a decent enough image and then resize in Infranview for RFF. Extra work - probably, but its a way that I've found acceptable and Iranview seems to produce lower file sizes than the PS resize. I've not noticed critcally important differences at the intended 800 px long viewing size.

ampguy

01-27-2007, 14:32

This helps a lot.

the problem with large file sizes is their effect on server speed, bandwidth, and long term storage.

After talking it over with George, the upload file size has been incrased to 300KB, but it is not going back up to the old limit.

Stephen

Dougg

01-27-2007, 16:04

300 is great, 200 would have been fine too, thanksAgreed; thanks! The more bokeh is evident in the photo, the easier it is to get the file-size down, but I generally have no trouble getting down into the 150k range with images smaller than 800 pixels on the long side. I use GraphicConverter, and it's just an easy adjustment of the jpeg compression. But shots with more detail and texture are more resistant to compression. I'll still try to keep files below 160k, with few exceptions, and I appreciate the extra elbow-room now allowed! :D

RayPA

01-28-2007, 13:48

This will change soon.

Jorge and Stephen, thanks for hearing us, and thanks for raising the limit.

:)

raid

01-28-2007, 14:49

Oh well; what more can I ask for?
Thanks.

Raid

ClaremontPhoto

01-31-2007, 06:17

When will the change happen?

Doug

01-31-2007, 09:07

When will the change happen?I had assumed it would be (or was) implemented immediately. But yesterday I hit the 150k limit on a post attachment. I haven't tried adding a file to my gallery. So that does raise the question whether the "uploading" limit applies automatically to both gallery and threads or whether those limits are set independently.

raid

02-01-2007, 08:24

I just tried to upload an image with size over 150Kb in a critique thread, but the system would not let me do this even though it is stated in the image uploading box that a jpeg fie can have size of 300Kb. Someone needs to fix this error.

Avotius

02-03-2007, 18:57

I wonder what is going to happen with the uploads. I have been waiting off untill something happens.

RayPA

02-03-2007, 20:27

I wonder what is going to happen with the uploads. I have been waiting off untill something happens.

I saw where one option (jpeg) has a 300kb limit. Is this not working?

I just tried to upload a jpg at 272kb, but it didn't work. The only file extension enabled for 300kb is jpeg, .jpg is not. Both probably need to have the limit on them set to 300kb.

:)

Avotius

02-03-2007, 21:06

RayPA

02-03-2007, 22:05

when I push the button to upload to the gallery it still shows 150K as the limit, same with posting images in threds

This is what it shows in the gallery upload page:

Allowable Image Types: jpg,jpeg,png
Maximum File Size: 150k file size limit.
Upload Limit: 5 images per day.
Images in your queue: 0

is it just non paying people who have this problem? seems some of the registered people are too

This thread addresses the file attachment limit in threads, not the gallery. The file attachment limit in threads has nothing to do with whether a member is "non-paying"

.