Forum Images

[Pete Eeles]

Continuing various threads currently in personal diaries ...

I take it Pete that you mean 800 wide or 800 high rather than a square picture.

Yes.

Now, that 800 x 600 has been resized to something like 500 x 375 but has lost its bite and looks far less clear until I click on the image and see it full size

Of course - it's a thumbnail and not the original image!!!

It’s a bit of a fag to click on every photo to see just how good it really is.

So we have 3 choices:

1. Leave things as they are where a thumbnail gets created that will never be as clear as the (larger) original image. However, page load times are greatly improved.

2. Provide a mechanism whereby the larger image can be view more-easily, using the same mechanism as used on the main UKB pages (a "popup" appears with the larger image appearing).

3. Don't create thumbnails at all and allow the large images to be posted as-is (i.e. going back to what we had originally).

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

My problem – and of course it could be the computer set up that I use and not a problem shared by everyone – is that the present “thumbnails” are too big and don’t really give the impression that they have to be clicked on. So I suggest a fourth choice, a small thumbnail, maximum size 150 pixels at the very greatest. It would then be much more obvious that this is not the photo in all its glory and has to be clicked on.

I would be happy with this option of small thumbnails or alternatively, no thumbnails at all and see the full size image immediately. The present system seems to be an unhappy compromise that just does not do justice to many of the fine photographs that are posted on ukb.

Jack

[Padfield]

I was just about to create a new thread for this too - I was trying hard not so sabotage Paul's diary!!

I am strongly in support of the current mechanism. My reasons:

1 I might be alone on this, but in almost all cases I really don't care how good the original picture is - I regard pictures in threads as illustrations, not artworks. I almost never click on the picture, the exception being when there is some important detail I might be missing, or if it is an interesting variation I'd like to see close up. In general, I have no interest in judging pictures outside a competition. Your pictures are excellent, Jack, but I've never thought, 'Ah, he's losing his touch - that isn't sharp enough'!!

2 I browse a lot from a mobile platform, particularly while travelling. Larger pictures take very considerably longer to load and the experience is far smoother with smaller ones, whether thumbnails or smaller embedded ones.

Guy

[Dave McCormick]

I like the current mechanism for images as is too. If you see a thumbnail image you can click on it to see the larger image, its better that way as it doesn't take as long to load images (I have a wireless broadband, but at times I am only getting 512kbps to 2MB! and I have a max 8mbps connection, but its where I live, can't help that for now) and it doesn';t usually effect imgaes loading on here, but for the large external images...sorry Paul had to use you as an example, can take a bit longer to load for me.

I don't mind using external images, its good for people like Guy who have external images they wish to share and don't feel the need to upload them on here first, but only if they are a certian size otherwise, upload them here, get a thumbnail to click.

[Jack Harrison]

Dave is unlucky to have such pathetically slow internet so I take his point about preferring thumbnails. But if we do have thumbnails to cater for situations like Dave’s, then I would much prefer proper small thumbnails and not what we have now, an intermediate size so-called thumbnail that is neither one thing nor the other.

I do have to wonder though if a better program to produce thumbnails could be used. I don’t understand the technicalities very well but the “thumbnails“ (and of course I use that word advisedly) on ukb are nothing like as sharp as thumbs I have seen on other websites. The resize algorithm that comes with the package that Pete uses is obviously not the best.

Just a bit of technical stuff. I often use Paint Shop Pro. But if I simply re-size, I get the sort of results that we see on ukb. I found some good tips about moiré, etc (which I think is the problem) from Cambridge in Colour:
http://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tutori ... or-web.htm
So following that advice, I apply Gaussian Blur, resize and then sharpen the resized image. I am pretty sure Photo Shop does this automatically.

Jack

[Zonda]

Don't understand this, i can do thumbs,,,



Or big,,,,



With two sizes in between, what's the prob?

LAST YEARS PIC

[Jack Harrison]

Yes, but that thumb (and the big image) are not hosted on ukb. Nor does the thumb give a bigger image if clicked.

I would like to see much smaller size of thumb automatically generated when someone uploads a larger image to ukb which when clicked gives the full size picture. I just don't like these large blurry thumbs that are used at present that give the impression of very poor quality photos – I often look no further for that reason. And of course, I am fed up with seeing my own pictures so badly downgraded that they look awful.

Yes sizes in between would be no problem if they were sharp. But they are not.

Jack

[Zonda]

Aah! I see. Big ask tho. Some people don't like their blurry images blown up automatically. If your images are being downgraded, bring them in from an outside website.

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Jack - I've upgraded the mechanism as you suggested. Can you please let me know if your thumbnails look any better now? Thx.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Padfield]

I think the thumbnails are excellent quality now. They still load quickly and don't interrupt the flow of a page, but also give a good impression of the photo.

I understand your concerns, Jack - you take pictures with care and skill and you like that care and skill to be evident in your posts. But I don't think anyone would assume the reduced thumbnail in a post represented the full quality of the image. I certainly never did. I've always known you take superb pictures.

The present large-format thumbnails make it easy to browse a page and look at the pictures without having to click on them. I think that is the ideal situation, though I don't feel strongly enough either way to kick up a fuss!! The butterflies themselves are the really interesting things, not the photographs.

Re loading speeds, it should not be forgotten that more and more people use 3G or E a lot of the time. That is not as fast as a broad-band connection. Websites should be designed, in my opinion, to load rapidly on mobile networks as well as on the home or office computer.

Guy

[Pete Eeles]

Hi Jack - I've upgraded the mechanism as you suggested. Can you please let me know if your thumbnails look any better now? Thx.

What I forgot to say - is that this will only apply to new images uploaded.

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

Cambs & Essex BC seems to be using a good re-size algorithm to produce not only clear thumbnails, but the images that after clicking are sharp even though reduced from the original uploaded images.

http://www.cambs-essex-butterflies.org. ... s_2010.php

For example, I might upload an 800 x 600 to Cambs & Essex but on the website, it appears as a neat thumbnail and then after clicking, as an adequately sharp 640x480. Webmaster Tony Moverley is doubtless using a different re-size program. If you want to contact him, he is:

anthony_moverleyATbtinternet.com (of course change the AT)

Jack

[Pete Eeles]

So have you tried the mechanism I've set up?

Cheers,

- Pete

[Jack Harrison]

I have tried the new mechanism but didn't see any quantum-leap difference. Sorry but Cambs & Essex does seem to do it better.

Anyway, I will be out of the web loop for several days doing REAL butterflying.

Jack

[MikeOxon]

I'm puzzled! When I add an image attachment, I upload a file from my computer, add a comment, and place it inline.

Sometimes it appears in a frame, sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it adds the filename, size, and number of times viewed below the image: other times, not. I thought I did the same process every time so why the different results?

Mike

[Pete Eeles]

Sometimes it appears in a frame, sometimes it doesn't

If the image is larger than the space available (the browser window, minus the space required by the forum itself), then scroll bars will be added. So this behaviour depends on the image size and the screen resolution.

Sometimes it adds the filename, size, and number of times viewed below the image: other times, not

Got an example?

Cheers,

- Pete

[dilettante]

I'm having problems with the images in Google Chrome:

First, if I open a species page such as http://www.ukbutterflies.co.uk/species.php?species=camilla, I get no scroll bars. But worse, if I click on any of the thumbnails, the image just shrinks and disappears. Sometimes it works and I get the larger pop-up image, but more often than not it doesn't.

From a brief search, this page suggests it might be fixable with a newer version of Highslide JS?

[MikeOxon]

Got an example?

I think you provided the clue by mentioning image size. I have just used the Test thread to post two images. The smaller image (400x300) adds the filename, size, number times viewed to the caption and has no border, while the larger image (640x480) has a border but no added caption.

These images originally appeared in the threads: Photography | A few butterflies from Kent July 18, 2011 and Sites | Collard Hill June 27, 2011

Many thanks,

Mike

[Pete Eeles]

Hmmm. I'm stumped! Will look into this - the behaviour should be consistent!

Cheers,

- Pete

[Lee Hurrell]

I've noticed this.

It seems to be only when a file is particularly small, as in the 12th image down in this ID request thread:

viewtopic.php?f=14&t=5421

That one was only say, 500 pixels square as a result of a huge crop.

Cheers

Lee