Any chance of the file size being increased upwards from 400kb?
That's pretty small in this day and age for a file.
 |
  |
 |
Thanks useful information: 28
Any chance of the file size being increased upwards from 400kb?
That's pretty small in this day and age for a file.
I don't think it's that small. Lots of pics you see on forums are sub-MB.
Think of the PP skill required to present just a 400KB image
Remember when they were a whopping 250KB on AP?
A good question, though.
CC, Image editing OK.
No. Not at this stage. Remember that AP is free, but the site costs money to host and run. The more we increase the sizes, the more storage space is needed and bandwidth used, which all adds to the cost of keeping the site online.
As per your other thread about Flickr, we do not restrict sizes on linked images, so you can use flickr etc if you want to upload larger files and link them into AP.
Last edited by ricktas; 11-08-2019 at 4:09pm.
"It is one thing to make a picture of what a person looks like, it is another thing to make a portrait of who they are" - Paul Caponigro
Constructive Critique of my photographs is always appreciated
Nikon, etc!
RICK
My Photography
This is a thing Dale.Originally Posted by ricktas
I link things via Flickr at 2000 on long side and a bit over 1200kb. Seem to work.
Another thing to keep in mind too(bandwidth) .. you may well have fast-ish internet connection, but not everyone does.
The more space something requires, the more bandwidth it needs, and those with flaky, high latency, slowish internets then have a painful experience when trying to view.
Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
{Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
{Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
{Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC
{Yongnuo}; -> YN35/2N : YN50/1.8N
Threadstarter
The main unfortunate consequence of linking photos to forums is that for innumerable reasons over time those links get broken leaving forums with an abundance of threads with just a blank square where a picture should be.
That won't happen with Flickr until you delete the image from Flickr.
Threadstarter
No that's not correct. Flickr has put a 1000 image limit on free accounts which has seen a huge number of people deleting millions of photos from their accounts before Flick automatically deletes them.
This has broken untold millions of links to untold countless images hosted in forums world wide. Also Flickr was very close to getting the plug pulled and disappearing altogether as was just recently stated by its new owner Don MacAskill.
Yes but you were asking about uploading files to AP.
Create a new Flick account for posting to AP?
I post a lot of photos here and can deal with Flickers restrictions. I'll bet I post the next 1000 photos here before you.How long will it take for my 999th photo to drop off?? Ages.
Just saying.
bad links appear on all forums. People have linked to photoshop tutorials that no longer exist.
There used to be a great website called Action Central that was a repository for hundreds of downloadable photoshop actions. Until the person who created it decided to not continue and shut the site down, leaving links that would not work.
It is not just photo links that have this issue.
Can I ask what it is about the 400kb limit that you feel restricts you? The image quality at 400kb and 1200 pixels is a great balance, you would likely not notice any difference if you compared one at 400kb and one at 500kb.
What do you think the benefits of going to say 500kb would be?
Last edited by ricktas; 14-08-2019 at 6:55am.
There are two choices, either contribute funds to Ausphotography to enable Rick to afford the hosting costs or subscribe to a paid service such as Flickr.
Any free hosting service will eventually become unreliable.
Threadstarter
I'm not worried about my Flickr photos being deleted, I've paid Pro membership for 10 years.Yes but you were asking about uploading files to AP.
Create a new Flick account for posting to AP?
I post a lot of photos here and can deal with Flickers restrictions. I'll bet I post the next 1000 photos here before you.
Just saying.
- - - Updated - - -
Hi Rick,
It was just a simple question mate, its your forum you do what you want and I'm happy with whatever you choose, want, do, or don't do. Its a great forum and I appreciate you running it. It was just a thought on my part that the 400kb limit may have been something that hadn't been looked at for awhile. As in all things computerwise images and file sizes continue to grow.
A hobby site that I admin on and financially support (not photography based) but which is very photo heavy has the only restriction of 25 photos per post (members can make another post directly under that post ad naseum and load another 25 photos) and the maximum individual size of each photo is 5120KB
I'm on a lot of different hobby based forums some photography, some not and off the top of my head AP is the most restrictive when it comes to file size, again not bitching, just stating something.
So again. If I increased the KB size from 400kb to 512KB what improvements do you envisage in what you see in a photo, from increasing it?
Increasing it simply because someone else has, is the least valid reason for doing so.
Rick, while I have my own web site, and host my photos from there, I feel a 1-1.5 MB limit would be more appropriate.
My own site is fully hosted on SSDs, and I have unlimited storage and bandwidth capacity. It costs me a fair bit (couple of hundred dollars a year), but that's mainly because I can also host multiple domain names.
Again, convince me how an increase in filesize will improve the experience of viewing photos on the site, for you.
Oh and if you think a couple of hundred a year is a fair bit, you do not want to know how much AP costs to host. I have never been able to find an Australian host who would take the site on, once I get them the stats, for under $250 a month. Which is why the site is hosted in the US.
Last edited by ricktas; 14-08-2019 at 7:19pm.
Threadstarter
Rick I've never mentioned 512kb
Sorry, I misread your 5120 as 512.
But I still am not getting an answer. How would increasing the KB size improve the viewing of the photos on AP?
I will add here that the vast majority of people visiting the site are doing so on screen of 1920 pixels wide or less. So increasing the 1200 pixel size for images seems moot. Because people would then have to start scrolling to see the entire photo. If the majority of people were viewing the site on screens with 2560 or 3840 then increasing the pixel size of photos allowed would be considered.
Simply increasing the KB size, for what benefit, which so far, no one has been able to provide, or doesn't want to provide, or doesn't really know the answer to, does not seem a valid reason to do so.
Just because my camera can take photos at 4000x6000 pixels, doesn't mean I should upload them at that resolution. I export for upload to google photos at 1900x1200 at 70% jpg quality, and I find that sufficient for web viewing. The resultant images are 250-400kb. At 1200px on the longest edge, I'd be able to have a higher jpg quality and still be under that 400kb limit
No real need to have higher quality for an online forum like this when people are ONLY looking at the photos on the screen.
If the forum was here to provide images for printing, that would be a different matter.
John Blackburn
"Life is like a camera! Focus on what is important, capture the good times, develop from the negatives, and if things don't work out take another shot."
Threadstarter
Out of interest, what is the benefit of these photo forums having these sizes/limits for posting images?
Nikon Gear
1200px
2560kB
Nikon Café
1600px
1mb
POTN
1600px
2.5mb
Nikonians
1800px
1mb
Fred Miranda
2000px
1mb
DPReview
30,000px
20mb
Last edited by Bear Dale; 15-08-2019 at 10:05am.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Add To Bookmarks
