Why do people use Photobucket

[/pine]

personally what I find more frustrating than using (slow) third party image servers is those that do not properly resize their images before posting them...in most cases there is no reason to post or link to images larger than 800x 600...
Granted, higher resolutions are advantagious for quality printing but for viewing on a monitor they're not needed...

I have a fairly large monitor (19") but many of the images uploaded to TBN are so large that they are practically impossible to view and defeat the purpose.

 

[BigE_]

I ask everyone who posts photos in their posts instead of using the TBN thumbnail and link to the large photo, to please not post photos larger than 600 pixels as a courtesy to the other readers.

So, you're asking everyone to keep their photos at VGA resolution (640x480)? No offense, but my 14" monitor back in 1990 could at least do SVGA (800x600). I believe either your video driver is not installed correctly, or you don't have it set up correctly if you can't at least do 800x600. That's 20 year old technology, and I suspect your computer isn't 20 years old. I'd be more than willing to help you get it going correctly. PM me back channel.

I just *gave* away a 19" flat screen (not flat panel) monitor on Craigslist that could do 1600x1200. Maybe check there for a free monitor? (I couldn't sell mine for $25, but worst case that's all you'd be out).

-Steve

 

[BigE_]

I do agree that some pictures posted in-line are way too big.

Easy and quick way to resize your pictures:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/Downloads/powertoys/Xppowertoys.mspx

Download the ImageResizer. http://download.microsoft.com/download/whistler/Install/2/WXP/EN-US/ImageResizerPowertoySetup.exe


Then, in Windows Explorer, right-click on 1 or more of your pictures and select "resize pictures. Choose your resolution, and off you go. Easy as that.

 

[bp fick]

So, you're asking everyone to keep their photos at VGA resolution (640x480)? No offense, but my 14" monitor back in 1990 could at least do SVGA (800x600). I believe either your video driver is not installed correctly, or you don't have it set up correctly if you can't at least do 800x600. That's 20 year old technology, and I suspect your computer isn't 20 years old. I'd be more than willing to help you get it going correctly. PM me back channel.

-Steve

Well said. I don't like enormous photos either, but asking everyone to limit to VGA screen standards from Mesozoic era isn't reasonable.

 

[MarkV]

Also keep in mind, as a tractor site many members live in rural areas and have no option besides dial up internet connections. In line photos are a real problem when you are on dial up.

MarkV

 

[/pine]

So, you're asking everyone to keep their photos at VGA resolution (640x480)?

what I suggested was reducing the size of images before they are uploaded...it has nothing to do with display settings...

FYI the display settings on my (19" display) laptop are set for optimal display...

 

[bp fick]

Also keep in mind, as a tractor site many members live in rural areas and have no option besides dial up internet connections. In line photos are a real problem when you are on dial up.

MarkV

MarkV, ditto the dialup. I deeply regret anyone still has to use dialup. I am very sympathetic. I don't mean to sound crass in any way. But, broadband is the standard by which all internet design, function and operation runs today. Has for a number of years. As a part time web designer, we used to take into account dialup connections, but we stopped doing that when dialup dropped below 25% of the users in the US. Realizing that perhaps a tractor site is slightly higher, still..... Again, deepest sympathies for those on dialup.

 

[/pine]

broadband is the standard by which all internet design, function and operation runs today.

I am not really sure what this means but...

...If you are not designing for mobile access you are not keeping up...Think "HTML"...display properties for mobile devices are hardly the same as residential broadband user capabilities...

 

[bp fick]

Pine

Mangled my syntax there.

I simply meant that web designers no longer take dial up into account when setting up their web features. Between graphics, sound, flash, details, etc... it simply assumes broadband. And yes, mobile devices are now taken into serious account.

 

[/pine]

Mangled my syntax there.

likewise...I actually meant to say "think XHTML" or at least HTML4

These days it does not make sense to develop two different version of a web page or application (for mobile access)...like it did back in the days of WAP...


on a relative note...when posting images here (or on any forum etc. site) just think of those trying to view images on an I-phone etc...granted the new "mini-book" mobile devices most likely have image rendering software the best solution for everyone is to simply reduce the size of raw images...not only for display...the less bandwidth use the better ...


on my phone I pay by the kb...even if the phone has the capability to resize an image it has to download the entire file before it can render it to a managable size for the display...some of the images I see posted here could end up costing several dollars even at .01/kb (my rate)