A Request - do not post similar images!

[Pete Eeles]

Hi all,

A significant cost of hosting UKB is file hosting - especially the large number of post attachments (images attached to posts, in the main).

I would like to request that members refrain posting long series of images where the difference between them is insignificant (unless showing a particular feature or behaviour). This does not apply to images that are not hosted on UKB and you simply link to them.

I'd appreciate your cooperation - we may need to "cull" seemingly-similar images in the future.

Cheers,

- Pete

[bugboy]

Hi Pete,

Would it help if images were resized before posting? I never bother myself except when asked to add one to the main photo galleries but if it helps out I will in the future.

[Pete Eeles]

Thanks Paul. I set the limits for the file size that I deem acceptable (and expectations have definitely gone up over the years!) and so, if you're able to upload, then all is well.

The issue (I think) is with a series of images of (say) a butterfly that has moved 1mm between shots, but shows absolutely nothing new! It not only takes up file space but, in my opinion, devalues the post itself

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

Would it help if images were resized before posting? I never bother myself except when asked to add one to the main photo galleries but if it helps out I will in the future.

It's worth remembering that doubling the image dimensions (all other things being equal) increases the file-size fourfold, so a single image posted at 1600 x 1200 is worth four at 800 x 600. A single image at 3200 x 2400, which is smaller than many that people post, is worth sixteen at 800 x 600. A well-composed/cropped image at 800 x 600 is more than adequate for most screen purposes.

Guy

[Jack Harrison]

This does not apply to images that are not hosted on UKB and you simply link to them.

Guy. I remember that you put me on to this and now (with occasional exceptions for small images) I use PhotoBucket. For those unfmailiar with this method, I'll try to explain.

I upload my compressed picture to Photbucket (there are many similar services). Then usie the 'Img tag' to embed my picture within my message. Apart from NOT using ukb's webspace, a larger image can be shown. As Guy says, no need to have a width greater than 800 pixels. I normally use 600 width.

So as an example, an image I posted yesterday was on Photobucket as http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac85 ... jnaqly.jpg

Using the Img tag, putting that in produces a direct image that is not using ukb's space. Thus:


Jack

[MikeOxon]

.......I upload my compressed picture to Photbucket (there are many similar services). Then usie the 'Img tag' to embed my picture within my message. Apart from NOT using ukb's webspace, a larger image can be shown............

Thank you for that information, Jack. Another point about posting images is that there's no need to use very high quality JPEGs - I find that lower quality (higher compression) is fine for 800 x 600 images that are to be displayed on the screen. These only occupy around 150kB or less, depending on content.

Because I am more directly interested in photography per se than many people on this site, I enjoy the discipline of trying to select my 'best' (or 'least worst') images before posting. I sometimes spend ages trying to decide which one to put into the 'annual favourites' thread, rather than just submitting several, as I know many people do. As I say, I like doing things that way, and don't wish to put people off from showing several pics that illustrate different aspects of butterfly behaviour or patterns (what is the equivalent term to 'plumage details' in the birding world?)

Mike

[MikeOxon]

Following some correspondence with Pete Eeles, I now understand that it is the number of files that are of concern, so my previous comments about file-size reduction are, apparently, irrelevant.

[Padfield]

... so my previous comments about file-size reduction are, apparently, irrelevant.

As are mine.

Guy

[bugboy]

... so my previous comments about file-size reduction are, apparently, irrelevant.

As are mine.

Guy

as are my recent experimentations with file size in my PD...