Too many photos posted at once causes problems (process, cameras, megapixel)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Please understand that I am not the Web/forum master, so what I am about to say has no weight. I will ask you to please take it with a grain of salt. Here it goes:
Some of us post huge photos in this forum. One of two of such photos posted simultaneously may not be a big problem, but when you post a series of large photos all at once, it takes a while for the photos to display, unless the person trying to look at your photos has a high speed DSL.
You will notice that such posts usually have a lot of hits, but very few to no responses from the rest of us. There is a reason why a lot of us don't look at your photos and then respond: it takes too long waiting for the page with such a large number of photos to load--------
Sometimes threads are going nice and easy, with a lot of responses, and then somebody posts a huge number of photos all at once. This is a thread killer, folks
I noticed that too, and frankly if there is a series of 20+ photos the waiting time is long, then most of us does not pay enough attention to each picture. There are to many to see, to many to notice special effects or details and to many to comment. I like the best when members post 1-3 pictures. Maybe is just better to post more often but not that many…
I wonder how others feel about it.
And there is a way to reduce the size of the picture. One of the easy programs online is webresizer.com
I have ole 14.7 inch CRT... I try to post 600 X 600...or less depending on my mood... I think some people may have these new fancy 23-24 inch monitors..
I noticed that too, and frankly if there is a series of 20+ photos the waiting time is long, then most of us does not pay enough attention to each picture. There are to many to see, to many to notice special effects or details and to many to comment. I like the best when members post 1-3 pictures. Maybe is just better to post more often but not that many…
I wonder how others feel about it.
And there is a way to reduce the size of the picture. One of the easy programs online is webresizer.com
Agree with you. Sometimes I really want to look at some of the photos, thread started by one person, and when I click on the thread I realize that one single post contains a great number of very large photos that take forever to load. That's when I immediately exit the thread because I don't have the patience or the time to wait. But if the photos are small enough, or just one to three large ones are posted at once, this is not a big deal.
Photos scaled-down as follows aren't a problem even if one posts eight or more all at once: scale-down the photo so that the long side (vertical or horizontal) is from 750 to 850 pixels. The other side is sized or scaled automatically by the application you are using. The photo would now be a lot smaller, but still large enough to cause problems. So, the next step is to save the photo for WEB POSTING at maximum image quality. When this is done, the "saved for web" photo is from 300 to perhaps 500 KB, which is not only perfect for posting on the Interned, but for e-mailing.
When one opens an e-mail that contains photos, there isn't anything as annoying than having to wait several minutes for huge photos to download. But by scaling-them as i mentioned above, the photos pop right up, and display from 6" to 8" horizontally on most screens.
Another advantage is that such a photo is not the best one for someone to steal, since it's very limited in size or quality for printing.
I have ole 14.7 inch CRT... I try to post 600 X 600...or less depending on my mood... I think some people may have these new fancy 23-24 inch monitors..
600 to 850 pixels is perfect for most screens. You are doing just fine
There can be pages upon pages of such smaller photos posted, and the pages open pretty fast. It's only when the huge photos are posted that the page-loading process slows down. This forum scales the photos down, but that too takes time since the photo has to be screened and down-sized.
Pictures taken with 12+ megapixel cameras and not resized are huge and do not fit into any monitor screen. I do not even open those I cannot see at once...
interesting , i use smugmug and since the photos are reduced from 12 meg and stored at 3-4 meg resolution for sale they give you an assortment of sizes you can link to..i recently dropped in size from full screen to half screen when someone said they had an issue with slow loading.but im not sure how they load on your end now in half screen. ...
let me know if the ones i just posted are slow like sleepy hollow...they are around 800x600 they are under 300k... i wonder if compression is a factor and not just size?
just wondering if we are talking delays loading on dial up connections? i know even full size the photos load at my office in 5-10 seconds on a cable modem and about the same on dsl from our pocono house. so im assuming its dial up load times yes?
at home its immeadiate but they are probley cached but at my office they arent.
if they still load slow then ill just hold the post to 2 or 3 photos and forget the little photo tours. it could have been the number of photos , but im curious as to whether its a dial up issue only ....
Last edited by mathjak107; 06-15-2010 at 04:31 AM..
I have high-speed DSL but still have difficulty with posts of multiple high-res photos.
What's really unfair is for those who post photos after that person, as you either have to wait a while to get to them while the others open up, or they may not even get seen as people exit the thread as mentioned above.
I personally would prefer between 1 and 3 photos resized to no larger than 800 x 600. It would be easier to look at the details and make comments.
I also don't understand why whole new threads have to be started sometimes when there are lots of categories they could be put under.
the problem with the catagories is after a while its impossible to find anything they can grow so long....
alot of times people will ask about a particular place and to try to find something you may have posted 100 pages in somewhere as well as not even sure of the catagory months later makes it tough to find.
if its about a particular place it should get its own heading.. if its posting a flower or something non location specific you can add it on elsewhere that exists.
since im always looking for new places to photograph i like seperate area threads.....
I have cable at home and office, and sometimes it takes forever to load pictures. Some people post so large that they are like wall posters, or they post 40 pictures, take the sign thread. I enjoy the thread but refuse to look at it anymore due to people posting so many pics at once.
why not post 3 pics and they repost a little later with 3 more ?
It is unfair to people that post 1 or 2 as thier pics are being over looked because we dont want to wait for the thread to load. And I agree that new threads for a few pictures that could go in another thread should be condensed into an existing thread.
I have skipped over threads and probably missed some great stuff due to all of this.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think some people may have these new fancy 23-24 inch monitors..
