View Full Version : I see the Fun Police have been hard at work.

John Potts
31-08-2010, 08:59 PM
I've just tried to post a thread showing pics of our recent successful show at Harewood House and find I can only post 4 images in a post.

What's the reason for this? Is someone concerned we might actually have a little fun using this forum? Could this be one of the reasons this forum is relatively quiet considering the number of members?

01-09-2010, 07:08 AM

I don't really see the problem. You can upload several posts (which you have done) or link to an album held elsewhere i.e. facebook, photobucket, or your album accessible via your control panel if you have a large number of photos to share.

I don't see why you should feel that the "fun police" are at work

All forums that I am on have a limit to the size of posts or files that can be uploaded. It is normally there to ensure

a) that the posts load relatively quickly
b) to ensure that members don't have to scroll through hundreds of photos to get to the next post in the thread
c) to ensure that all the bandwidth / storage space isn't taken up by a relatively few files.

I would ask anyone who has lots of photos to upload a taster or two to the forum and then link across to a photo hosting site to make life easier for their colleagues, who may want to see any comments.

David Sparkes
01-09-2010, 08:26 AM
Limiting pictures to 640x480 maximum would also show some consideration for other users, and would not, IMHO, have harmed the message being portrayed by the pictures in the Harewood thread.
The point being that pictures of 640x480 would load more quickly, and would fit within most browser windows on most PCs without requiring the use of both horizontal and vertical scroll bars to see all of each picture.


01-09-2010, 08:59 AM
Maximum attachments per post is set at 5. Maximum dimensions are not set but thumbnails are initially displayed in the thread of the attachment so it should not display images of a unreasonable size unless you click on them.

Is 5 a reasonable number? I don't have any great concerns about the bandwidth/storage size (this is a pretty small site), so its up to what is considered acceptable by the trustees and users?

Paul Johns
01-09-2010, 09:42 AM
Patrick, it sounds good to me.

Loving your work

Cheers PJ

David Sparkes
01-09-2010, 11:49 AM
... Maximum dimensions are not set but thumbnails are initially displayed in the thread of the attachment so it should not display images of a unreasonable size unless you click on them.
...That is not accurate in the Browser I currently use, Firefox 3.6.8 with a PC using a 1024 x768 window.
Put that another way, if your 'thumbnails' come out so wide they need a horizontal scroll bar then we have a very different understanding of what is meant by 'thumbnail'. Or you have hands I never want to see up close, especially waved in my face or wrapped around my neck :-) (Of course, if a hand had a thumbnail of that size it would only take one hand to wrap completely round my neck).

Let's be absolutely clear, I've never clicked on any of the pictures in the Harewood thread, and they ALL gave me a horizontal scroll bar, in a Browser window set to full screen size.


01-09-2010, 11:51 AM
Hi David,

Could you link me to the thread please? It depends how they are put in the post, if they are linked from a external site with IMG tags rather than uploaded as attachments we have no bearing on their size, its the choice of the poster.



01-09-2010, 12:01 PM
Just had a look, they are included by IMG tags from photobucket. We can disable IMG tags and make it attachments only (which would make thumbnails) if this is a requirement from people?



David Sparkes
01-09-2010, 12:37 PM
Thanks for the explanation Patrick.
I confess these photo sites have never earned plaudits from me. ('Never' in that I can't think of one that's tempted me to use it).
I'm more than happy to have pictures uploaded as attachments, which then has the side benefit that the picture stays even when the poster moves on or changes / closes the off-site photo account.
This is more important for Techie shots, less important for 'social' shots.

What's the negative of disabling IMG tags?
A poster has more difficulty 'borrowing' a shot they haven't taken themselves?
Any other negative?
I ask because I don't know, and an informed debate requires information :-)


John Potts
01-09-2010, 07:49 PM
The problem I can see is that, as a technophobe, I haven't a clue how to resize pics so wouldn't be able to attach 'em.

Actually, the site says the limit is 4 images per post and I found out because I was using the smilies rather than the pictures. That's why it feels that the fun police have been at work.

01-09-2010, 08:29 PM
John the easiest way to resize images (for a technophobe) is probably paint. A programme that comes with all PCs. It is usually found in 'accessories' .

Open the photo that you want to resize, then click 'image' then Resize/Skew If you reduce the horizontal & vertical by 50% you make it 1/4 of its original size.

Simon Bentley
02-09-2010, 08:12 AM
I'm not a photobucket user so don't know but does it not give you the option to resize on upload or alternatively to set the size of image to display when it gives you the link. I use Picassa (Google photo hosting) which does both of these.

I think we need to retain the IMG tags - much easier when posting on mutliple forums to just copy and paste the whoel lot across - which I believe you could have done JP.

andy riches
02-09-2010, 08:46 AM
if you need help resizing pictures i use a program called pixresizer (available here) http://bluefive.pair.com/pixresizer.htm its free and perhaps the thing i like the most is that it will do bulk images so if you have a whole folder it will resize them all with a few clicks

Tony Ferrari
02-09-2010, 07:15 PM
I don't think Photobucket offers you sizing options anymore but all my pictures from there seem to automatically come up as 800x600 anyway?