posting images on ED forums

In the light of the forum rule

4.5. - Be respectful of other members' bandwidth. Keep image sizes down, use the attachment function to thumbnail images, do not quote images, minimize image signatures, etc.

I kindly ask everyone to comply and with this topic I'll try to make it as painless as possible. Generally it doesn't require much effort.

Q: Who are you to tell us what to do?! Yo are no moderator!

A: I'm not telling. I'm asking. Who am I is irrelevant. Posting my resume won't make your anarchism go away nor your issues with rules are of my concern.

What's the easiest way to post images in an inobtrusive manner if I don't get the formats and image compression at all?

It would be - posting clickable thumbnails. How to post clickable thumbnails? Just replace 'imageshack' with the name of your service.

How to avoid re-quoting images?

When replying with quotes the most elegant way would be to leave links only (if you feel they're needed) by removing the and codes. The easiest and fastest way - simply add spaces somewhere in the codes, e.g. %5B/img%20%5D%20should%20do%20the%20trick.http://luci.criosweb.ro/riot/images/riot_mare.jpg' alt='riot_mare.jpg'>

The National Geographic example

http://forums.eagle.ru/showthread.php?p=1258319#post1258319

How to post images - full size attachment

Go to Post reply > Advanced > Manage attachments

Upload an attachment It should be listed now if you succeeded.

Copy the link to the attachment and exit the attachment manager.

In your reply text put THELINKYOU'VECOPIED

Done!

I find quoting images annoying sometimes, but... it doesn't use more bandwidth does it? its the same image just replicated? I also like decent HQ images. Must suck if you're on an amstrad though with dialup. /giggle

I find quoting images annoying sometimes, but... it doesn't use more bandwidth does it? its the same image just replicated? I also like decent HQ images. Must suck if you're on an amstrad though with dialup. /giggle

In a proper browser - it shouldn't (not sure). Even if it doesn't it does utilize more CPU when scrolling through page (mind mobile users) and takes up a lot of space. Try topics where 3 people in a row quote the same set of 3 shots.

The crucial part of the topic is about posting images anyway :P

The Che Guevara of Picture Struggle is back!

Viva la Pixelation!!

The Che Guevara of Picture Struggle is back!

Viva la Pixelation!!

I just knew I will have to clear that up :music_whistling:

No one is asking anyone to post low quality images, obviously. But often you can see an ace who posts a 1.5 MB screenshot which should be around 300 KB. See the reference images and spare me the b*. No need to summon bloodthirsty pop culture icons either :P

Don't think you will be successful proposing software for ppl to download, install, and use for each photo.

On the other hand:

Uploading sites like imageshack will downsize the file for you directly when uploading. They also give you thumb links (like you proposed some time ago).

Advertising for those services would be a better strategy imo.

PS: Same Bandwidth for everyone!! :megalol:

Very noble post - Good luck at your journey Don Qiu... ehm.. Bucic !

The info section will be supplemented.

Fiddled with RIOT - personally noted an unacceptable quality degradation at settings lower than 100% on the 'quality' slider which is to be expected I suppose. Then again - all depends on the screenie concerned.

Who are you to tell us what to do?! Yo are no moderator!

How about a compromise. A new thread for large military/aircraft photos. You can star it... D'oh! I meant low Res photos

Fiddled with RIOT - personally noted an unacceptable quality degradation at settings lower than 100% on the 'quality' slider which is to be expected I suppose. Then again - all depends on the screenie concerned.

Genuinely funny :D

JPEGs are not supposed to be saved at anywhere near 100%. That's one. Two - RIOT does not cause quality degradation to any higher degree compared to when you save your image using any other software at the same quality setting i.e. RIOT's 85% ~ Photoshop's 85%.

How about a compromise. A new thread for large military/aircraft photos. You can star it... D'oh! I meant low Res photos

I'm surprised you said that as the compromise has been acknowledged by yourself, IIRC. Namely - posting clickable thumbnails where possible. Also, again, it's about avoiding ridiculous, unnecessary file sizes. That said IMO aircraft photo topic should not be under less strict images file sizes rules which is currently the case.

Genuinely funny :D

Glad I tickled your funny-bone :D

I'm a simple man - If I toggle that slider to less than 100% my picture turns into a dog's breakfast........Unacceptable.

As such I uninstall, forget about it and return to ways of old - simple :P

I'm surprised you said that as the compromise has been acknowledged by yourself, IIRC.

Not a compromised, I got tired of getting hate mail. I like the big photos. People have the choice to view a thread. If I can handle the download, I don't go to that thread.

Glad I tickled your funny-bone :D

 

I'm a simple man - If I toggle that slider to less than 100% my picture turns into a dog's breakfast........Unacceptable.

 

As such I uninstall, forget about it and return to ways of old - simple :P

That's what's funny - see my previous reply. Additional trivia - every single, professionally prepared JPEG is not saved at close to 100% quality. This makes you an owner of very keen eyes. Perhaps you should make use of them professionally somehow ;)

...

I made a mistake in my previous post, sorry! :/

I wrote:

That said IMO aircraft photo topic should not be under less strict images file sizes rules which is currently the case.

while it should be

That said IMO aircraft photo topic should be under less strict images file sizes rules which is currently the case.

Also I'm pretty sure I've never send you a "hate mail" :)

Never said you did Bucic, I simply said I got hate mail

Never said you did Bucic, I simply said I got hate mail

I know but I just wanted to make it clear here. I look bad enough as it is :)

I apologize did not meant to give the wrong impression

No problemo.

This makes you an owner of very keen eyes....

On the contrary, the owner of a well-calibrated Dell U2410 24'' ;)

On the contrary, the owner of a well-calibrated Dell U2410 24'' ;)

Doesn't change the fact that "less than 98%+ JPEG quality is unacceptable" is bollocks ;)

Anyway, I always say that if National Geographic won't convince infatuated, nothing will and if it really won't then I leave the task to someone more eager to bang his head against a wall. (check the file sizes of the images below)

source: http://photography.nationalgeographic.com/photography/photo-of-the-day/landscapes/

Considering the recent mess in the screenshot thread, with blokes posting 10+MB worth images in one post, this needs a bump.

I think it'd need too many steps. People want just make screenshots, or take real pictures and just share them.

In XXI century where gaming world mostly exist in high-tech lands (Europa, America, Asia, Australia), internet connection, bandwidth is quite enough for smooth experience even for large images.

Personally I think more problems with large images eating my RAM, where after while my system is frozen due to no any memory left.

Once I opened Military screenshot thread, Firefox ate 2 GB of RAM, almost everything.

I had to reset system lol.

I think it'd need too many steps. People want just make screenshots, or take real pictures and just share them.

 

In XXI century where gaming world mostly exist in high-tech lands (Europa, America, Asia, Australia), internet connection, bandwidth is quite enough for smooth experience even for large images.

 

Personally I think more problems with large images eating my RAM, where after while my system is frozen due to no any memory left.

Once I opened Military screenshot thread, Firefox ate 2 GB of RAM, almost everything.

I had to reset system lol.

Yo haven't even skimmed through the first post, did you? For those seeing it as a stellar challenge there is only one step given: a) post clickable thumbnails OR b)post default JPEGs (jpg files, ~85% compression).

You see, no software saves JPEGs at 95% compression by default, as some of the forum-born anarchists here keep posting. You have to actually manually change the compression yourself to get a ridiculous value, like it often is.

And yes, it's more about eating up RAM and CPU. For no good reason, as posting images at 4 times (or more, as some geniuses manage) the perfectly adequate size, or in PNG format, is no good reason. Of course for some there sure is a reason. Their shots are just so extraordinaire they require down-to-pixel quality :doh:

The problem is more serious on laptops, netbooks and mobile devices. But let me assure you - mobile device deal just fine with high-resolution images. Even mobile devices struggle only with the ones prepared by the real connoisseurs. Not knowing is one thing. Ignorance and stepping over others heads is another thing.

From the forum rules:

4.5. - Be respectful of other members' bandwidth. Keep image sizes down, use the attachment function to thumbnail images, do not quote images, minimize image signatures, etc.

If you find posts that in your opinion are problematic in regards to this rule, please don't hesitate to link us to it or report it and, if necessary, we would discuss it with the offender or take other action as we see fit.

I have no problem with people wanting perfect images, but this forum is not a vernissage for your digital photography. It is always possible to have your least-compressed, just-perfect, filesize monsters someplace else, and post rationally compressed jpegs here. (Besides, if you want perfect, you don't want jpegs at all. :P )