A lot of people have been asking for this so now we've made it happen, so enjoy! These forums will largely self-regulate, just be sure to follow the simple guideline about image size limitations, and keep images in the right forum.

Have fun, looking forward to some great photography and video discussions!!!

Well done WZ and to David for implimenting the changes so quickly. I'm sure we'll see many great images and learn a lot from one another whether we're family snap shooters or serious amatuers.

That's about the only part of the guidelines that I find a little confusing. Is it implying that you must use thumbs OR abide by the image size restrictions? Or is it implying that we must limit the images we hyperlink from our own hosting solution?

If it's the latter then great, if it's the former then I don't quite understand the limitations. I usually save my web files at nothing less than quality 8 which results in a landscape orientation 800px image being between 120 and 180kb. A 650px portrait orientation being about the same and a 1000px wide/panorama being between 200 and 250kb.

Pixel dimensions are optimised for viewing at 1024x768 which should be web standard these days and file sizes are within the limitations of a lot of photo sites which actually host the images.

Little confused but the change is great

Hi Jake, image restrictions only apply to actual images displayed. Text-only links (URL's) to images can be any size, doesn't matter as they are not on display here. The only reason the restriction on displayed images exists is for the dialup users, plus in the chase season a lot of chasers log in from dialup accounts or mobile comms whilst on the road, so a happy medium is needed.

So, images actually displayed need to be thumbs or kept with file size and physical size limits, with a link to higher res version if you want.
Note also that people should still post images in Breaking Weather as they want, there's no intention to change that at all, in case anyone was wondering.

Great thread guys, was definitely needed!

TS

Thanks for clarifying that David, champion effort guys and girls :cheers:

Yes argeed that this was a step forward, thanks to all involved. Now for the pics...


Mike.

wow! awsum stuff guys..was definantly needed! so many awsum photographers out there! needed to b achnoledged more!

Glad to finally see a photography forum, seeing as though so much of the weather we report on relies on photographs.
(Also great timing, my camera arrived at the post office today, pick it up tomorrow and actually get it on thursday )

:cheers: Will

Blue Mountians Photography

Great idea guys well done.

David

Have fun with this all!!!!
This should be good

:cheers:
Ray :p

... Now to convince my long suffering wife about that new lens

Ohhhh PLEASE get rid of the stupid size limit, or at least make it reasonable with this new forum- say max 80kb per image, no more than 300kb per post ... I'm sick to death of having to double click just to see what the photo really looks like.

If you think about it, people on dial up need to do exactly the same thing if they want to look at the pics- you can't get a real feel for a pic by a thumbnail- so there is no time saving ...

IMHO, it is a stupid rule pandering to the lowest common denominator, for no real reason.

yeah i agree with CB a bit here although clicking and opening is not as big an issue for me, i would sometimes just like to be able to load a screen and see some nice crisp images without having to go thru all that rigmarole again

is anyone on this forum actually on dialup still? i'd imagine it to be a fairly small percentage

kudos for starting this thread up though, im especially looking forward to gaining some more knowledge in photoshop techniques!

I disagree. I think thumbnails are very effective in posts with multiple images and make life much easier for this reluctant dial-up user. Even if I'm on broadband I appreciate the extra effort as thumbs allow you to pick and choose what you want to examine in more detail.

I personally can't be bothered looking at threads involving large images when I'm restricted to dial-up speeds.

I agree with Andrew. I have broadband (1.5mb download)but i have gone over my download limit once (you get slowed to dial-up speed!) and trying to load a one 300kb image is a pain!

yep me too.. I wont be checking out these threads if the images are any larger...

Good stuff having a photo section. Keep the size limit tho. If broadband is so quick it won't take long to download. Loading a full page of pics takes me more than 10 mins and that annoys the crap outta me.
:cheers: adon

But my point is, if you really want to see the photos, you are going to have to open the thumbnails anyway, and often the thumbnail will point to a larger image than would be displayed here ... so where is the time saving? Infact it just takes longer?

Also some people here need a lesson in optimising their files for the web, and some better hosting providers- a lot of the delay in downloading images is because the files are over the size they should be and the hosting provider is crap.

Here is an example ... looking at this thumbnail - it looks like a boring photo which I wouldn't bother looking at.


But the medium res inage is a lovely photo which users on dialup would miss if they didn't click the thumbnail ... (only 67kb- don't have a child)


what ends up happening because of this, is that dialup users just click on every thumbnail, or don't click on some thumbnails and miss out on a good photo ...

hhmmmm on the other hand the dial up sufferers (not users) start loading a 2mb page of images that is taking foooorever and get jack of it (as I used to when on dial up) and give up and browse somewhere else and see NO photos. So whats worse, thumbs or nothing.
For this reason its fair to keep the posted images to no larger than 50kb or post thumbs.
Then there is choice for all

I think the current size limit is entirely appropriate for a forum. I can't imagine anyone being so impatient that a simple click on a thumbnail or a text link is considered an imposition.

The difference Cb@SZ is that using thumbnails or links gives the user a choice. If large images are embedded in the posts then you're going to have to wait for them to load whether you want to see them or not.

James,
It would be fine if there was only one image per page, but seeing as this is an actual photo forum, you could probably bet that its more likely to be one or more images per reply, and it usually takes about 15 replies to fill up a page, so you're talking a fair amount to download when each image is 80Kb, it would easily be in excess of 1Mb, and that's with only one image per reply.
Why not use a slightly larger thumb?

:cheers: Will

Blue Mountains Photography

James your 2nd image is perfect. The image looks great and isn't large, and looks better than the thumb as you said. That image proves that the limit suggested (65kb or 70kb to argue the 5kb difference is petty) is just fine. Those that want to can then go to a high res version if we want, surely? People will state the way they want the forum size limit to be, so far the limit seems to satisfy most that have commented. If it's an annoyance for most then it would probably change if the admins chose to change it, have to wait and see I guess.

for those of use who aren't too savvy with optimisation, but can take a good photo - could you please give us some instructions as to how to do this. I use PSP and Photoshop.

G'day Jane, I use Photoshop and resize all my web images to be 700 pixels on the longest border, and then I use the 'save for web' option to reach a jpeg compromise between size and quality. Originals are always archived for future use etc. I do this for my own web site, but it works for here too.

Jane,
The easiest way I find to keep the size down, is when you save an image as a jpg, a little dialog box pops up asking you what level of quality you would like the jpg to be saved as. This ranges from 1-12 (if memory serves me correctly), I usually set it to around 6 or 7 for web and this will usually compress an image (depending on physical size) to somewhere between 45-70Kb. But that is my personal preference, and its what I find works for me. Play around and you'll find out what suits you're needs.

:cheers: Will

Blue Mountain Photography

Here is a great example of shithouse optimisation ... this photo:

http://img47.imageshack.us/my.php?image=halfexposedby10xzoomoct200519a.jpg

This photo published on imageshack is 128kb in size ...

Here is the same photo, slightly smaller for the sake of the thread ... it is only 24kb ... 5-6 times smaller it took me about 10 seconds to reduce the file size ... some people are just too lazy I guess.


Tell me the difference between these two?
BTW te full res version (the same as the original is 18kb)

It wouldn't be difficult to compress an image like that to a very small size ... because it contains hardly any detail!. Why not quit arguing and just accept the umpire's decision James.

Jane, another thing to consider is to change the image resolution before resizing and saving. In Photoshop when you bring up the resize dialogue window you will see a box where you can select the resolution in DPI. Change this to 72dpi, then resize the image, then "Save As" a .jpg and use the "quality" slider to get a decent compromise between image quality and file size.

Ummm what? That is my entire point! Thank you for explaining it for me again! A thumbnail version of that photo would have hardly any detail and people would have to look at the full sized version.

When the full sized version is 6-8 times larger than it should be because somebody could not bother optimising it for the web, you have to spend 6-8 times as long downloading what is a fairly boring photo ... (and the photo above is 24kb because of the automatic image sizing routines on my server, the optimised version of the original is infact 18kb (i.e. 7 times smaller).

Put the medium resolution image up, not the thumbnail, and before you upload it optimise it ...

Changing the dpi makes zero difference, this is just a number that is used for printing purposes to detirmine how large to print the image. I think what you meant to say is change the actual image size, i.e. the number of pixels. From my digi cam the pics come out at about 3000x2000 pixels, (eg. http://trapdoor.darb.net/gallery/hotham23-280904/cIMG_0817?full=1 ) You want to reduce that to something managable for people who still use 800x600 resolution screens.

What I've been doing, with varying success is resizing the images to 700 x 525, but it's trying to work out how to get the image size down to manageable levels without compromising viewing quality - I'd been using the slider for image size (down to say 7 rather than 12) in one program and saving using compression in the other, but I wondered if there was an easy and fast way of doing it that was foolproof (ie: meproof)

James its not about the pixel dimensions, but the size in kb's as you have well pointed out. And different images have different compression characteristics. But sure, if an image compresses well then post the whole thing and don't worry about the thumb. Mate, we really need to give our members stuck though no fault of their own to slow internet a choice to browse these threads and so the image size restricion needs to be adhered to.
Dave has given a good method of finding a balance between compression and quality. Perhaps the photoshop gurus want to make an addition to this in the photoshop thread? I personally use the ulead smart saver pro plugin in photoshop to find that balance.
Its true that changing an images DPI affects only the printing characteristics. It amazes me how many large print organisations such as the trading post still insist that images for their web adverts be set to a certain pixel size (fair enough), but also a certain DPI.
Cheers,
Tim

No James, I meant exactly what I said ... but I neglected to say that the "resample image" check box should be ticked. This resizes the image when the resolution is lowered and the image becomes a bit less attractive to those who like to "lift" them from web pages.

As far as the "inconvenience" of having to click thumbnails is concerned, I wonder if you are familiar with dedicated photography sites such as ADPOTD ?. That site uses thumbnails exclusively. Clicking a thumbnail will open an intermediate size image and clicking the intermediate image will open the original image. Last time I looked ADPOTD had over twenty one thousand images but I have never seen one comment or complaint from users about having to click through two images to view the full size original.

In contrast. WZ is primarily a weather site but the administrators have graciously provided us with a dedicated photography forum. Everyone else has posted here to express their thanks and appreciation but your initial post has branded it "stupid". You have labelled users as "lazy" and "in need of a lesson". It's a shame that your rather colourful vocabulary doesn't include "Thank you"!

Sorry, you are correct, I did mean to say thank you for the forum- I think it is a great idea, and I do appriciate the effort.

My point is, in case you missed it, simply this. Thumbnails DO NOT make it quicker or easier to view pages of photos ... not if you are going to look at them all anyway. All I'm doing here is expressing my opinion that I would far prefer to see threads with decent sized images, than threads with thumbnails which I have to individually click, then press my back button, then click the next one, then press my back button then click ... you get the drift ...

I'm sorry Andy, but if you are talking about changing the DPI setting in regard to resizing images, then you honestly do not understand what it means, nor what the program is actually doing.

Yes it will work, but only because the program is fixing the print dimensions- in otherwords it only works because you are telling the program to print it at the same size, but at a lower resolution. If you are going to teach people how to change the resolution of an image, it much better to teach them the fundamentals ... i.e. actually changing the number of pixels than some roundabout way that just happens to work, but when they use a different program, probably will not. Checking the "resample" box just forces this to occur. It is better for people to fundamentally understand what is happening, so therefore they should actually change the pixel dimensions of the image ... NOT the DPI, otherwise they may end up with a far larger (or smaller) image than they intended.

Yes, I DO understand how it works. When I resize an image in PhotoShop I will reduce the resolution to 72dpi with the resample box ticked. Without leaving the dialogue box I will then change the pixels to suit wherever I'm posting it ... 700 pixels on the longest side in the case of this forum. This results in a lower (print) resolution image with the desired dimensions which is then "Saved As" a jpeg. I then use the slider in the "Save As" dialogue to choose the highest quality setting that gives a file size of less than 75kb (in the case of this forum). In practice I haven't used this method on WZ very much as I use (and will continue to use) clickable thumbnails.

As far as the rest of your argument is concerned, you are assuming that everybody wants to look at every image. This is not always the case. You don't seem to understand the idea that thumbnails give users on slow connections a CHOICE in what images they view and provide a visual indication of the content of the image on which to base their choice. By embedding full size images in posts those same users have no choice but to wait for all the images to load. The file size limitation imposed on this forum minimises the imposition in loading pages containing a lot of embedded images.

I see the point your are making here, but personally I seldom look at all of someone's pics if they post 6-8, unless it's a certain event or they're a photographic gun like Dave Simpson. Sometimes I don't look at any of them, but just skim the text.

Not sure if I'm in minority there or not.

Ummm all you are doing then is resizing the image twice because that is all changing the dpi does ... dunno why you would want to do that because changing the image size more than once reduces the quality of the resized image.

Ok so your camera spits out an image 3000x2000 - and it tells the image that it is to be printed at 300DPI (i.e. 10x6 2/3" in size) ...

You import it into photoshop, and change the DPI to 72 with the resample box checked ... ALL this does is chage the image dimensions to 720x480 ... You then change the image width to 700 pixels (and therefore the width to 467 pixels) ...

Changing the DPI does NOTHING different than just changing the pixel dimensions ... All you are doing is going through an extra step that is totally unnesecary and reduces the quality of the resized image.

Yes thumbnails give users a choice of what images they want to view, but if you refer to my post previously, you'll note that I pointed out that in many many cases you cannot make an accurate detirmination if the photo is any good from a thumbnail, so therefore you can't really make a choice of whether to view it or not.

I gotta agree with Andrew - I will very rarely look at more than one or two images per post. Thumbnails are by far the best option, especially if you're using firefox - centre click on the image (on your mouse scroll) and the link will pop up in a new tab. No need to go "back and forth" to view all of the images, or to alternate between browser windows.

very true, Firefox rocks because of tabbed browsing (but you still need to click on the new Tab and then close it )

It's all done in the same dialogue window and from my understanding the image is processed only once ... when the user clicks the "OK" button.

Like Andrew, I seldom look at all the images in a thread and contrary to your statement, the thumbnails provide me with the ideal way of determining whether an image is of interest or not.

Large or numerous embedded images have been an ongoing problem, particularly in forums such as Breaking Weather. I use a tablet PC with a CDMA based 1X connection when I'm chasing. Nothing is more annoying than looking for meaningful information on a particular event only to find that an entire forum page is full of embedded images that take a long time to load or posts that consist of nothing more than "Wow!" me too stuff. I can't do much about those who post the "Wow!" stuff but at least the use of thumbnails means I don't have heaps of embedded images forced on me.

I think that the image and file size limits in force are entirely appropriate. The limits are sufficient to allow embedding a decent quality image without impacting on those with low bandwidth connections. Anyone wanting to show larger images can simply post a text link or a clickable thumbnail.

It would be interesting to know how many users ALWAYS look at ALL the images in a thread ... but I strongly suspect it isn't the majority.

I still don't understand why you don't just enter 700 in the image width section then? What is the point of setting the DPI at all?

As I said in an earlier post:

This resizes the image when the resolution is lowered and the image becomes a bit less attractive to those who like to "lift" them from web pages.

How does it make the image less attractive ... it does nothing at all to the quality of the image, it just changes an internal definition of how large the image is to be printed ... I see no reason to change the internal definition of the DPI at all, it does not effect the display, nor file size of the image.

Ohhhhh!!! I give up!. You just HAVE to argue with everything don't you!!. Just forget I ever mentioned it!

Cb@SZ...relax mate, for goodness sake. You're nearly as bad as me!

The purpose of this forum is to share our images not just display them, which means taking into consideration all internet connections and setups. I think its pretty simple really.

I can't afford image programs and only have IrfanView but I find it works well. With my 3.2 MP Canon, I just halve the size of my original, halve it again and then reduce it to 80% of that. I then save the image at 60% of best quality or lower if I want to put more than one image in a post. Usually, I will post one small image and link to others in the series, indicating bigger images where applicable. If I'm keen to share a good storm shot, I sometimes crop the image, showing the details of the updrafts etc and then link to a bigger image, wider view.

An example here of one of our storms last season, quite a small shot but clear enough:



Note the wall cloud...

This image is 600 pixels wide with the DPI at 72 and compressed using 7 in photoshop and the image is still clear plus it's only 53k!
http://members.ii.net/~twc18/wxzone/13oct2005/DSCF0005.jpg

Actually Ive been quite calm, it is others who have got upset.

All I did was question why andy mentioned DPI in his "expert" opinion about how to resize photos, I still have not recieved a decent answer, so I can only asume he made an error (but ausumptions make an ass out of you and me ... and he has yet to admit any error).

I suggest you re-read my responses, I have not been intentionally agressive, I have just asked some questions, which perhaps some people would prefer not to have been asked?

It is much easier to pretend you are an expert than to actually be one

OK Kiddies, enough on this baiting please.
Time to be nice to one another again.

Any more discussion on image format and compression techniques can take place in the photoshop thread where it belongs.

Ok, so what about those who dont have photoshop? Ppl like me lol who are shocking at resizing and when they do, they end up with images with square boxes all over them from savage pixelation!!

TS

Hey, TS, did you read my post on the previous page? IrfanView is a free (basic but good) program that will more than cater for your re-sizing needs. I typically shoot in 50 ISO with my Canon and most of the images start of pretty clear and sharp so re-sizing doesn't damage them too much.

Yes, as Blizz says, IrfanView is an excellent free program. It supports PhotoShop plugins, allows resizing, conversion, lossless JPG rotation and viewing of RAW files.

To resize an image simply open it in IrfanView, select "Image" then "Resize/Resample". Make sure that the "Preserve aspect ratio" box is ticked then type in the dimensions you want for the longest edge of the picture ... 700 pixels for this forum if you're embedding images.

Click OK then click the "File" menu item and click "Save as". Select .jpg as the file type and enter the new filename. The downside is that in IrfanView you can't see what size the file will be until after you've saved it but for an average image I find a setting of the "quality" bar somewhere between 50 and 60 will provide a file size below 75kb.

You will need to check the file size before uploading and this is best done while you still have the image open in IrfanView. Just open Windows Explorer and go to the folder where you saved the image and check the file size. If it's too big just use "Save as" again in IrfanView but with a slightly lower quality setting.

IrfanView can be found Here ... and make sure you download all the plugins too.

Another quite decent freebie program is PhotoFiltre. This is a complete photo and image manipulation package and can be found Here . I think there may also be a shareware version but from what the site says, this appears to be the free one.

My apologies for posting this in the wrong thread. It should really be in the PhotoShop Techniques and Q&A's thread so if a kindly moderator would like to move it ... or if that's not possible then delete it and I'll repost as I have a copy.

Hey there TS, lets move this coversation to the photoshop thread as suggested by Andy....

Howdy all. Look, would any of you kind WZ forum folk know where I might be able to get my hands on a pic of the storm front of the 1999 Sydney hail storm?

I have had a fruitless weekend on Google trying to get a pic of this.

Any help with this would be greatly appreciated.

HT. : )

Tried these?

Michael Thompson http://ozthunder.com/chase/chase13.htm

Australian Severe Weather
http://www.australiansevereweather.com/storm_news/990416.htm

Ahhh. Thanks for those links, David. Pretty much what I was after. Great stuff. : )

Hey, I have just noticed this forum, great to see it eventuated :cheers: . For someone who is only getting about 25% out of a good camera, this forum is going to come in very handy (and I will not need to add yet another post to the 70+ page post that probably influenced this new section ).

Cheers and great move,

Roger.

Don't know if this is the right one to put this into but anyway. I did a little experiment the other day when the first of the stormy weather was brewing. I got my sunnies and put them over the lense while taking a photo.
Here 'tis

http://img481.imageshack.us/img481/6149/20051021octstorm00758vt.jpg

Hey adon,

I've got a new Nokia 6225 CDMA mobile with a built-in 350kP CMOS sensor camera in it and on bright sunny days I have always placed my polarizing sunglasses over the lens to increase the colour saturation, remove unwanted glare and to give the photo some depth.

With my film camera's I always have a polarizing filter attached when doing outdoor stuff, it just makes the photo heaps better.

Mick.

Hello there everyone!
I just signed up today because i seen this place has a photography forum!
I enter a lot of online photography and photoshopping comps usually, and i love taking mainlny landscapes with big clouds.
The size limitations seem cool .... the main place i enter pics automatically resizes pics to 600pix wide were another has a 640 pix at the largest side.
And as a dialup user the small file size restrictions are great!
And i like the idea of a pic of these dimensions being display as opposed to links or thumbnails.


Anyway heres a pic i took about a week ago out in my paddock ... ive never seen a sky and a sunset like this before.
Very surreal to watch.
The red colour didnt last for very long.



I dont know much about weather... i wouldnt even know the cloud type ... let alone what causes the intense red.

Hello,

Just thought I'd put a couple of photo's in as I have just worked out how... The first one is of the first ever lightning photo that I have taken and the second one was of a rainbow that was in front of the balcony at the house I moved to for a year.





Leasy