some gallery changes

MP Guy · 09-28-2005

Well, As you can see, rff is growing. With growth comes bandwidth consumption. I have reduced the number of latest images to display on the gallery page and have reduced the max picture width and height to 800 pixels. Sorry folks

I am looking into a hosting site as well where better bandwidth can be provided.

Graciass

DougK · 09-28-2005

No problem, Jorge. Will we need to resize our existing images or is this a "going forward" kind of thing?

wlewisiii · 09-28-2005

Agreed. I've alread been resizing to 800 max for my recent postings, but would it help to go back through the older ones?

William

MP Guy · 09-28-2005

I will kick off a long job tonight to resize them. probably very intensive.

Gabriel M.A. · 09-28-2005

I already resize so that it doesn't get resized by the gallery; the compression gets rather nasty.

Does this mean that with tonight's job all images will be resized, or only the ones that exceed the dimensions?

BTW, I think it's a great thing another foot is coming down on the size limitations. I've seen some pictures that just make me think that either the uploader is clueless or reckless.

back alley · 09-28-2005

the gallery is a little wacky!
everything resizes to the same small postage stamp size.

RayPA · 09-28-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by backalley photo

the gallery is a little wacky!
everything resizes to the same small postage stamp size.

I just came over to report the same thing. When you click on an image it's no bigger than the thumbnail.

Toby · 09-29-2005

A maximum size is just good manners towards anyone with a slow internet coonection

taffer · 09-29-2005

I agree, we're quite a bunch of people here nowadays...

dcsang · 09-29-2005

Sounds fair.. I never make my images any bigger than 600px on the longest side anyway

I'm all about saving the bandwidth

Dave

JoeFriday · 09-29-2005

the gallery seems to be working fine now

as for image size.. I've always formatted mine to be 720dpi max (10 inches at 72 dpi) on the long edge.. so 800 dpi is plenty big enough

back alley · 09-29-2005

i also don't like scrolling to see one image.

i mostly post a between 650 and 800.

joe

einolu · 09-29-2005

I know that there are a few old galleries that could be deleted. For example, my gallery strangely got renamed to 'timg' so I had to upload things again. I think that was the case with some other people as well. Just giving you a heads up!

kiev4a · 09-29-2005

One of the things that takes up a lot of space ins the dpi some folks seem to be using. Looks like some must be saving at 300 dpi or above as slow as they load, when 72 dpi is actually fine for viewing on a computer screen. I think most of my oploads are below 80 k and I just noticed one recent post that was 7624.4 k -- a lot of 'em over 1000. Unless the poster is hoping the virews are going to download the picture and print it out (unlikely) that's just a wastes of space.

peter_n · 09-29-2005

Good point kiev4a. Maybe Jorge should be looking at file size as distinct from image size. Anything over say 250K, dump it!

Roman · 09-29-2005

Good idea about max. file size - but maybe put a big sign on top of the gallery that says "72dpi 800x600 -sized images are perfect for web viewing!" - I think many people don't know about that, and that's why they don't resize before posting.
At photo.net, pictures wider than 511 pixels won't even be displayed in threads, only as links.

Roman

RayPA · 09-29-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by Roman

... "72dpi 800x600 -sized images are perfect for web viewing!" - I think many people don't know about that, and that's why they don't resize before posting...
Roman

I agree, Roman. I think it is just that people don't understand the concept. Actually, uploading 72 dpi is also a (very) minor way to copy-protect your images. At that dpi, they are useless for anything other than viewing on a monitor. Uploading 300 dpi or higher allows someone to download your work and print themselves out a nice copy and do what they want with it. Just a consideration (and an incentive

).

On another note, I miss the other two rows in the Recent Uploads. Is this "change" really necessary? The Gallery Home page looks ugly without the other two rows, IMHO.

markinlondon · 09-30-2005

I think this is a very smart move, I'd never dream of posting anything over 700 px on the long side as the only reason I bought a broadband connection was my inability to view photo sites due to the size of submissions.

Thanks for the tip re 72dpi and copy protection, Ray, that just hadn't occured to me.

Mark

einolu · 09-29-2005

just throwing this out there, but would anybody be up for a gallery reset? as in, everybody starts fresh and puts up pictures starting now? then the uploaded images could be resized automatically to the standard 72dpi 600px wide or whatever and there would be less of a strain on bandwidth.

Doug · 09-30-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by einolu

just throwing this out there, but would anybody be up for a gallery reset? as in, everybody starts fresh and puts up pictures starting now? then the uploaded images could be resized automatically to the standard 72dpi 600px wide or whatever and there would be less of a strain on bandwidth.

This would lose all those valuable, fun, interesting feedback comments, wouldn't it?

jan normandale · 09-30-2005

How about a notice posted to members as a sticky;
• revise the gallery photos to 800 max and 72 DPI max
• go thru and clean up / refresh the galleries
• enter some minimal info on the shots posted

for Jorge and members to consider;
• I see a lot of shots in triplicate ie study 1,2,3…..
• close out inactive accounts with no log in to RFF in 6 months.
• Max upload in the RFF is 200 shots. Then you must delete to add if you exceed 200. lets promote some consideration of quality ahead of quantity
• I enjoy the Gallery of 20 fresh uploads to 10, if we cut somewhere lets not cut there. If RFF needs the ‘room’ I will delete 10 from my gallery to make room.

RayPA · 09-30-2005

[quote=jan normandale]...
• I enjoy the Gallery of 20 fresh uploads to 10, if we cut somewhere lets not cut there.../QUOTE]

I'm with you on this. Bring back the 20. Ten doesn't look right. (Although from what I understand it is a bandwidth consideration, not a storage issue [right?].)

jan normandale · 09-30-2005

I'm with you on this. Bring back the 20. Ten doesn't look right. (Although from what I understand it is a bandwidth consideration, not a storage issue [right?].)

[/quote]

Ray, it would help if I understood the difference. I don't; so I better find out. I'll surf around to resolve my lack of 'comprehension'

The original reason for my joining (and still is) was the gallery and the daily posting of fresh shots.

RayPA · 09-30-2005

[/quote]

Ray, it would help if I understood the difference. I don't; so I better find out. I'll surf around to resolve my lack of 'comprehension'

The original reason for my joining (and still is) was the gallery and the daily posting of fresh shots.[/quote]

Jan, I'm not sure I understand it correctly, but I think the bandwidth-thing has to do with access and faster screen loading: more users accessing the pages, more information being sent out (images increase page size), and system resources being taxed resulting in longer/slower load times. I *think* that's the idea. The images are thumbnails so they can't be that big, but they are images nonetheless , and there are/were 20 of them.

DougK · 09-30-2005

I've been meaning to clean out my gallery and rescan some of my shots anyway, this gives me a great excuse.