Are "certain" people just retarded or my monitor is way outdated ?

[BravoV]

Really, it is very annoying to see attached photos with huge resolution like >4000s pixels wide X >3000s pixels height, or sometimes even bigger that are "embedded" in the post instead of in small thumb state. 

This happened way too often that sometimes I questioned if my 24" 1920 x 1200 pixels monitor is already obsoleted. 

I guess these particular people are just too stupid to know how to resize a photo. 

Also is there any SMF add-on that can limit the resolution of the uploaded photos ? This will definitely helps on Dave on maintaining his server storage capacity too.

End rant.

[houdini]

You need a bigger monitor.

[DavidDLC]

What I hate more than bigger pictures/photos is people offending other people.

I hope this forum does not get out of control with haters, offenders, people that think they know everything, and more....

David.

[BravoV]

What I hate more than bigger pictures/photos is people offending other people.

I hope this forum does not get out of control with haters, offenders, people that think they know everything, and more....

David.

Appreciate and respect your view, but its my believe this kind of post is a necessary evil.

And yes, I've considered and crafted this thread title thoughtfully, its not just a simple impulsive post.

[IanB]

When I come across those over sized images I just skip over the post and don't spend time trying to view them. It's not my loss.

[BravoV]

When I come across those over sized images I just skip over the post and don't spend time trying to view them. It's not my loss.

Don't think you can easily skip if the picture is "directly embedded" inside the posting, not like those in stamp sized thumb state that we can avoid to click if it has those giant resolution.

[BravoV]

Or bigger store of tolerance.
Yes, I also find really big photos a bit difficult to handle. If they provide exceptional clarity then it is ok but if they are just big and blurry  then you wonder why not shrink them down.

Mostly I accept it since people are often just sharing something of topical interest and that's fine by me. It would be nice if the forum software could scale them down and allow you to expand them if desired. I know the thumbnails do this but it is a bit "all or nothing".

Sometimes I wonder if people are using a mobile phone camera or tablet to take the photo and  they don't have software to resize photos. I don't have either so I don't know for sure.

Nope, for me no tolerance for those who deliberately and fully aware that they've embedded giant photo directly inside their post, sometimes they don't even bothered to re-edit their own post with the newly resized photo later and just leave them like that permanently.   

Understand the limitation of certain conditions like you mentioned, but with uploaded giant photos as long they're not embed it in the post, they will be still in thumb state and can be easily skipped and perfectly fine.

[Bored@Work]

Nope, for me no tolerance for those who deliberately and fully aware that they've embedded giant photo directly inside their post,

I don't care if deliberate or not.

If someone wants to get his question answered and wants to be taken serious it is his job to make this postings readable, including taking the obvious limits of the system, like SMF, into account. It is not my job to sort through poo.

Same for people doing other stupid thinks. I don't care if they deliberately "do it for the Lulz", because they were dropped as a baby, or because they don't care. They get their nose dipped in their poo, because I certainly don't want to have it.

[GeoffS]

I agree that some people should think before posting images.
In most cases, a smaller picture will convey all the detail that's required - a large, grainy, phone camera image is no clearer for being supersized.

And please, don't use the argument that 'I don't know how to resize a photo' - it's not rocket science.

Try to post images using the Attachment option as it will automatically generate thumbnail images that are placed at the bottom of your post. If someone wants to look at a larger image, they can click on the thumbnail.

[BravoV]

And please, don't use the argument that 'I don't know how to resize a photo' - it's not rocket science.

Imo, in this age and era particularly in this specific forum, that kind of excuse if ever happened, should be considered as a major offense that deserved an instant & permanent ban upon reading them. 

[ve7xen]

Try to post images using the Attachment option as it will automatically generate thumbnail images that are placed at the bottom of your post. If someone wants to look at a larger image, they can click on the thumbnail.

Really I think the fail of these thumbnails is the biggest problem here. They're too small to really tell anything, but if you upload a camera image directly, they resize to unusable size. Also the forum software's CSS causes the scroll bar to control the whole post, so it's even worse, you have to scroll down to the scroll bar, back to the image and so on. Really frustrating.

The best option would be for the forum to handle this elegantly, make pagewidth thumbnails suitable for embedding clickable to full-size images opening in a separate tab. Hell just changing it so the existing thumbs open in a tab would be an improvement.

Second best IMO would be for users to resize them to a reasonable pagewidth sort of size.

It's of course always the poster's responsibility to make their post as usable as possible, but I think there is some leeway to be given here. The status quo on the forum is frankly crap. It's already a two-step process just to embed a photo you've attached to your post, and not really possible to include both a full size and reasonable size thumbnail in the same post, unless you go to the further step of creating them yourself and hosting them offsite. This is 2013, and these are the kinds of things computers are good at doing for us. We're spoiled elsewhere and expect better here.

If the topic interests you, you're going to look at the images despite the minor hassle, but that hassle really doesn't need to be there and is frustrating on both sides; I'm sure many posters don't bother posting interesting images because it's a PITA to do it right. They are just as frustrated as us reading those posters who have decided that they'll do it lazily anyway because they think they may be of value to others but don't have the time to invest in preparing them nicely. Better something than nothing.

tl;dr The reason this is even a problem is because you have to fight the forum software to do it properly. It's a pain in the ass for posters and readers alike, and it shouldn't be.

[Corporate666]

I am always surprised that modern cameras take pictures at such huge resolutions.

Most people

-email the photos
-post them to facebook
-post them online
-look at them on their monitor

I bet most people would be well served by 1280x1024 pixels, or less... they should make the full resolution an optional setting - the people that need/want it would know how to activate the setting.

[GeoffS]

Also is there any SMF add-on that can limit the resolution of the uploaded photos ? This will definitely helps on Dave on maintaining his server storage capacity too.

Not that I can find. There are modifications to limit image size for images linked to an external site (photobucket, etc) and to limit the size of the upload based on file extension but nothing that limits the dimensions of an uploaded image.

[AlfBaz]

What may be handy is some text that tells you max photo width when you press attach.

[gerrysweeney]

Ah a good old rant......thought I would have my 10 cents worth...

I have spent many years working with all sorts of people from all walks of life and I have to say I have given up (in a positive way) expecting people to do what to me would seem obvious. The fact is human beings don't all see things the same way and in my experience people don't put over-sized photo's on a post, or use (what looks like to me) stupid file and folder names on network shares to p*&& others off, there is generally no intent on their part - so "having a go" at them or "showing no tolerance" does not really get you anywhere, in fact it borders on bullying.

I agree with @IanB, if such an image offends you just ignore it and don't bother looking at it.

The fact is we live a "customer centric" world that today recognises that people are in fact "fallible" so in acceptance of that fact I would have another take on it. Software like this SMF forums software we are using is outdated.....and here is why.  Look at some big success stories, Apple, Google, YouTube, Flickr and many others they are good at one specific thing which is empowering users to achieve something great through creating a good user experience, which you would argue would otherwise definitely be beyond an individuals capability.  Lets take YouTube, I doubt many people would argue that youtube is anything but a good service right? (if you don't agree with that point you may as well skip the rest of what I have to say as I am likely to seem inadequate in some way!) Well imagine if every user had to upload video in a certain format, size, frame rate, colour space and resolution, well youtube would be no more....what youtube and many other services figured out al long time ago is they need to deal with the complexity so their users don't have to - and thats what makes them so successful.  That does not mean that people are stupid or incapable, even if that was true, why should it matter, should stupid or technically incapable people not have the right to post their content to youtube - of course they should.

So back to this forum software, I would argue that if this software handled images properly and dealt with scaling on the behalf of the user (like Facebook does for example) then your problem would go away because your over-sensitivity to over-sided images would not be experienced and the poster would not need to be concerned that your particular sensitive spot is over-sized images and someone else's is image position etc...computers and the internet are here to help us, they are not here to create a tech crowd elitism...

so your complaint really ought to be about this forum software and not the people posting images that look to big IMHO...no doubt not everyone will agree with me but I would expect nothing less - we are all human after all.

Gerry

[Bored@Work]

Gerry, you are arguing everyone needs to be pampered and spoon-feed in exactly the manner they want it. Every time, everywhere, and everyone else has to stand buy to provide that service exactly that at the right time.

The thing is, life is to short to waste time on figuring out how exactly each individuuuual wants to have his back rubbed in exactly the right way.

[gerrysweeney]

@Board@Work, I guess I am, but so is @BravoV, the only difference is, I am arguing for the computers to do the work, BravoV (and I guess you) are arguing that he should be pampered by everyone else doing things just right in a way that suits him....and thats not how the world works weather we like it or not.

Gerry

[8086]

you are arguing everyone needs to be pampered and spoon-feed in exactly the manner they want it.

Much like yourself then? 

[Rasz]

I guess these particular people are just too stupid to know how to resize a photo. 

or you are using outdated browser that doesnt support scaling (fit to screen)

[Bored@Work]

you are arguing everyone needs to be pampered and spoon-feed in exactly the manner they want it.

Much like yourself then? 

It is a question who comes with his hat in his hand. And that is the one asking a question. It is in his best interest to rub those who can answer at least remotely in the right way, by following a few established standards, instead of giving a flying fart.

[BravoV]

Text deleted


Moderator: Let's keep this on topic and not resort to personal attacks.

[mariush]

Sigh... i've been through this with another person here.

My camera sensor has whatever many pixels it has, there's no point into snapping the picture at a smaller pixel count - the camera will either just resize the picture inside or not use certain sensor pixels. It shoots at 3200 something, so i never change it.

All the forums I visit accept up to 4000px jpg pictures and ALL either:
* do a resize to 1024x768 and offer the full size image when you click a SECOND time on the picture
* load the whole picture but autoresized in a box that shows up on top of the forum page (javascript)

So at no point are users inconvenienced by the uploaded pictures when it comes to size.

The only downsize is the pictures sizes, usually 200 to 500 KB for such large pictures. 
Thing is, I got so used to having a good internet connection (100mbps cable) that I often forget others have weaker connections and just don't think about the file size.

Only some forums have issues with this file size but most just have rules not to use  [ img ] tags to put them inline in the page if they're large size, because users can actually click at the post footer and have the pictures show nicely on page.

I honestly try to resize and re-save to about 75% quality when I post pictures, but sometimes it just happens.

You also have to understand you may be in minority here. 60-80% of the people that have cameras with high resolution cameras and high resolution monitors shouldn't have to adapt to 20% of the people,

I have two monitors on my desk, both 1920 pixels wide.  Yeah, I'm still mildly annoyed when there's a 3000 px picture here, but it's only because the forum doesn't autoresize it, not because it's large.

[gerrysweeney]

Wow, I was moderated out....constructive comment obviously not welcome here....

[GeoffS]

Wow, I was moderated out....constructive comment obviously not welcome here....

No, the reason your post was deleted is that it was a reply to or quoted another  post that was deleted - perhaps  while you were making your post.
While the forum does give you a warning if a post has been added to a thread while you're composing a reply, it doesn't do the same if a previous post is deleted.
It had nothing to do with the content of your post.

[gerrysweeney]

Wow, I was moderated out....constructive comment obviously not welcome here....

No, the reason your post was deleted is that it was a reply to or quoted another  post that was deleted - perhaps  while you were making your post.
While the forum does give you a warning if a post has been added to a thread while you're composing a reply, it doesn't do the same if a previous post is deleted.
It had nothing to do with the content of your post.

Hi Geoff, my apologies in that case, I was wondering why, now I know. I can't remember what I wrote now so I won't bother trying to re-post, I guess the point is already made. Thanks for a quick response.