andybarton Posted May 5, 2011 Share #21 Posted May 5, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Well, the post and the images where still visible this morning at around 9am. At around 11am the post had disappeared. It was a couple of tulips, posted in the Nature & Wildlife images forum, so I do not see any other reason why it should have been deleted. Also, in the German images forum the last message from the owner of this site says Flickr et al are allowed. If you read the same message in English it says they are not. No PM or mail until now. For the record, there were nine shots linked to on Flickr, all of which are around 750kb, giving a download of around 6MB. All of the shots were in excess of the forum limit of 960 pixels on the long length and over twice the file size limit of 300kb. It was a different Moderator that deleted the thread. If I had done so, I would have dropped the thread starter a PM to explain the situation, but as I know, sometimes that just isn't possible. The rules on photograph sizes are very clear and are there to make the experience a good one for all forum members. Flickr links are acceptable, PROVIDED the images linked to don't exceed the forum rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 5, 2011 Posted May 5, 2011 Hi andybarton, Take a look here Change of Rules - External Images. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
Morfeus Posted May 5, 2011 Share #22 Posted May 5, 2011 Thank you Andy, that makes it clear what happened. What I still do not understand with this rules: we are in a Leica forum, highest end gear and the restrictions disallow posting high quality images as possible almost anywhere in the better photography forums I know. And all this with the argument that some people access the site with a mobile device from abroad. Seems strange to me. Off course I will accept the rules now that I know, as I am a guest here. Heinz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 5, 2011 Share #23 Posted May 5, 2011 If you sponsor the forum, the file size limit is doubled to 600kb. This is more than enough to show high quality images on a typical computer screen. If you show images that are too large in dimension, then portrait mode shots (particularly) need to be scrolled on many screens, which seems pretty pointless. Not everyone has a 30" screen, don't forget and many, many people read the forum on iPad-like devices these days. Furthermore, not everyone has a fast broadband connection and lots of people do access via mobile devices. Think of the forum rules as being a "higest common denominator". They are there to make the forum experience good for everyone. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 6, 2011 Share #24 Posted May 6, 2011 I understand the forum rules. I understand, that we are guests here in a private undergoing of the owner of the forum. I host my own images on a server, I rent, to have full control about that specific content. Recently, I host certain photographs also on flickr. Images, I upload from my own site are 800px / 300kb. Images from flickr are either 640px (according to my findings, not generally worth sharing, but a better thumbnail, to see context) or 1024px. Every modern computing device has either an automatic or otherwise very simple to access zoom function of the internet browser, to display slightly excessive images towards the native display resolution. On my main working computer, a 15" Macbook Pro, that means, that natively images are restricted, to 1440 x 900 native resolution. It takes me literally a split second + Cmd + "-" keystroke, to zoom the web browser for a full view of the image. It takes me 2-5 seconds and a drag and drop by mouse, to download a big image on my desktop and view it in my preferred image viewing software. On my mobile phone, a double tap on an image will zoom it to best possible size within less than a second. I do not expect, to be able, to review high quality images on the insufficient screen of a mobile device in general. I use my mobile devices for my business. I am prepared on the potential data amount, I use within a month. If that involves surfing a photo forum abroad, I prepare myself for this and use a second, better tariffed mobile card, only surf the photo forum with wifi, … I am regularly out of my tariff zone with my mobile devices, while traveling, so this is standard procedure - taking this as a major argument for crippling an important feature of a photo forum seems inappropriate to me. I take part in several photo forums, to share experience, photos and help with fellow photographers. Each of these photo forums generally fulfills a different purpose. On some, I feel at home, on some others, the experience is rather casual, while on LUF, my main experience and reasoning of being here is a pure tech talk one (which I find rather sad personally). Why do I feel that way, despite the big user base of professional and experienced photographers, taking place here? Image restrictions on a photo forum. Handling of posts of moderators with regular thread moving. Overall feel of the forum as a tech talk forum with most threads moving around this topic. Banning of most photo posting activities into the photo section with interference of moderators, "reminding" users, to not post so much photos in a technical thread (recent example is a thread about images, made with the CV 35 1.2 Nokton, which I as a reader of this thread have been very interested in). I do not feel comfortable in posting images on LUF with always having a second thought about moderators reactions of a potential photo post. As a result, I have restricted my photo posting on LUF massively, not sharing any photos in threads outside the photo forums any more and using the photo forums very, very sparingly. I do not intent to use LUF as a hosting site (or any website apart from my own and one major image hosting site for that matter). Next to me giving away control of that content, it is simply inconvenient. These are just a few thoughts, I have, when visiting LUF. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Morfeus Posted May 6, 2011 Share #25 Posted May 6, 2011 I should possibly not answer again with a post count of only 15 and being here only a month or so, but what menos M6 posted pretty much are the impressions I have. Heinz Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
andybarton Posted May 6, 2011 Share #26 Posted May 6, 2011 On some, I feel at home, on some others, the experience is rather casual, while on LUF, my main experience and reasoning of being here is a pure tech talk one (which I find rather sad personally). Why do I feel that way, despite the big user base of professional and experienced photographers, taking place here? Image restrictions on a photo forum. Handling of posts of moderators with regular thread moving. Overall feel of the forum as a tech talk forum with most threads moving around this topic. Banning of most photo posting activities into the photo section with interference of moderators, "reminding" users, to not post so much photos in a technical thread (recent example is a thread about images, made with the CV 35 1.2 Nokton, which I as a reader of this thread have been very interested in). I will respond to these criticisms and other Moderators are free to add their comments as they see fit. Image restrictions on a photo forum. These have been clearly explained above and in the Forum rules. Handling of posts of moderators with regular thread moving. Threads only get moved when they have been placed in an inappropriate section. Moderators have better things to do with their lives than move threads about for the sake of it. When I move a thread, I always leave an expiring re-direct so that the OP of that thread can see where it went. Overall feel of the forum as a tech talk forum with most threads moving around this topic. The subject of threads is entirely down to the membership, of course. Banning of most photo posting activities into the photo section with interference of moderators, "reminding" users, to not post so much photos in a technical thread (recent example is a thread about images, made with the CV 35 1.2 Nokton, which I as a reader of this thread have been very interested in) Again, the reasons for this have been clearly explained. When photographs are relevant to a technical discussion, they are perfectly fine in the "tech" sub-sections. I don't know the thread about the CV to which you refer, so cannot comment on that specifically. There is so much more to this forum than the "tech talk" sub-sections. For example: You have an active "Bar" area, where OT subjects can be discussed. You have a Photo Sub-section, which, as I type, has almost 60,000 threads in it. You have a Customer section, where general questions can and do get answered And you have a Forum Meetings Section - I would encourage any member to actually meet other members in person. These meetings are always enjoyable and is a great way to share experiences, share photographs and meet new people. You might even find that Moderators are human and don't have two heads... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted May 6, 2011 Share #27 Posted May 6, 2011 Advertisement (gone after registration) Andy, thanks for your post. Nobody thinks of mods with two heads though ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
epand56 Posted May 9, 2011 Share #28 Posted May 9, 2011 I must say that after having been scolded several times by Stuart for breaking the forum rules with my pictures from Flickr (he was obviously right) I've decided to upload the images on the Forum directly and in the correct size. This quickly became an habit to me. I don't see any problem in changing this rule. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
denoir Posted June 18, 2011 Share #29 Posted June 18, 2011 Thank you for making sure that people won't share their images here. This is 2011 and not 1998 and the image rules make it not worth the effort to post any images. I have not been posting images for a while because of the silly size restrictions (my web sized images that I post in other forums are 1400px wide). I had however a pile of lens test images that I wanted to post as I thought it would be of some interest, but that's not going to happen if I can't do external links. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 19, 2011 Share #30 Posted June 19, 2011 I do understand the reasoning behind this (except the strong restriction from linking from non flickr, smugmug, etc … sources, as this completely prevents many photographers, who host their own pictures on their own server from sharing that way, myself included). There is one major issue, I do not understand at all. The rule changes have been introduced by a German. There have been regulations of standard website pixel sizes for digital images for ages, which many photographers comply to as of reason for layout, web design, usual used size restrictions and alike. These sizes are widely known as longest size 640px, 1024px, 1280px, … etc. Why is the new restriction breaking with these standards, forcing people, who upload their images according to standards into using the next smallest image standard for upload? For me, this would mean, to upload an image with 640px wide, which is moot, as at this size any image is simply degraded to a thumbnail. For this very reason (size of 1024px wide images vs smaller dimensions), I use on my own website another commonly used image dimension: 800px 800px in fact provides a very nice compromise between visibility and smallest possible size (in high quality of 85% JPG compression usually around 150kb/image). The issue is, that most now allowed sites, to link from do not use this optimized size, rather the above mentioned standards. I use 800px on my own web server, but can't link, as it is not a LUF, new rules verified domain. This all is beyond me - it is the only photo related website, to pose such restrictive rules. I hope, there will be a change of understanding, to get this issue back to normal, so people can share images without the constant fear of a moderator interfering and acting according to opposed rules. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 19, 2011 Share #31 Posted June 19, 2011 I have not been posting images for a while because of the silly size restrictions (...). I had however a pile of lens test images that I wanted to post as I thought it would be of some interest, but that's not going to happen if I can't do external links. Thank you for not posting oversized and malware-infested images. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 19, 2011 Share #32 Posted June 19, 2011 Thank you for not posting oversized and malware-infested images. I don't like this: malware-infested images generalized assumption Phillip. There are in fact people, who use professionally undertaken web hostings, which assure a level of security, one a similar level as this very forum or major image sharing sites. Posting such is simple FUD, while I agree, that 1400px size JPGs generally are too big than necessary for most purposes on a forum. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 19, 2011 Share #33 Posted June 19, 2011 There are in fact people, who use professionally undertaken web hostings, which assure a level of security, one a similar level as this very forum or major image sharing sites. Posting such is simple FUD. Now you've taken the pains to explain that there are indeed secure sites, you will surely go on and explain how the operator of a forum can tell the secure ones from the other ones? Besides, the operator of this forum has established a white list. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
denoir Posted June 19, 2011 Share #34 Posted June 19, 2011 Thank you for not posting oversized and malware-infested images. I'm not sure I get this. Are you in a habit of posting malware infested images? What are malware infested images anyway? It's just complete nonsense. It does not exist. You could on the other hand easily provide a link "Look at this image" that leads to some malware infested site that can actually do damage to your computer if you have an unpatched browser and OS. As for image size, the standard size at FM for instance is between 1024 and 1600px wide. GetDPI on average is around 1200px. Most people with a serious interest in photography typically use screens that are 1920 px or wider so those are not unreasonable sizes. Not surprisingly, as a consequence you'll see far more talented photographers with Leica gear posting there as they do not wish to mutilate their work by resizing it into postage stamp sized thumbnails here. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 19, 2011 Share #35 Posted June 19, 2011 What are malware infested images anyway? It's just complete nonsense. It does not exist. The following is a link to Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028 Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing (GDI+) Could Allow Code Execution (833987) Issued: September 14, 2004 Microsoft Security Bulletin MS04-028: Buffer Overrun in JPEG Processing (GDI+) Could Allow Code Execution (833987) One of many instances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
denoir Posted June 19, 2011 Share #36 Posted June 19, 2011 Yes, that was in 2004 and although researchers have found such exploits they have never been in the wild. It's not a reasonable threat. Removing external links would be much more of a security measure. In addition all the browsers now run sandboxed so even if somebody found an image format exploit, damage to the system would be impossible. One very good reason why you should only have your images on an external server is to retain control of them. You upload an image here and you can edit the post for an hour. After that you have no control over them and can't remove them. Should you want to remove one for say copyright reasons you are at the mercy of the site administrator. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pop Posted June 19, 2011 Share #37 Posted June 19, 2011 ... all the browsers now run sandboxed ... Do they, now? How many users of this forum do you expect to run their browsers in sandboxes? One very good reason why you should only have your images on an external server is to retain control of them. .... That would require that anyone run their own servers; otherwise, you'd still have no control over the copies of your images residing on servers in the internet. What are doing about harvesting services which rip images off servers as soon as they are visible in the internet? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 19, 2011 Share #38 Posted June 19, 2011 Philipp, I get the feeling, you are arguing for the arguing's sake, aren't you? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pico Posted June 19, 2011 Share #39 Posted June 19, 2011 [...] What are malware infested images anyway? It's just complete nonsense. It does not exist. You could on the other hand easily provide a link "Look at this image" that leads to some malware infested site that can actually do damage to your computer if you have an unpatched browser and OS [...] . It is not nonsense. The malware is not within the image, but has to do with where the page directs when an image is clicked. The best explanation is here. I think it is possible to post a link to one of the thousands of infected Google referrers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
menos I M6 Posted June 19, 2011 Share #40 Posted June 19, 2011 It is not nonsense. The malware is not within the image, but has to do with where the page directs when an image is clicked. The best explanation is here. I think it is possible to post a link to one of the thousands of infected Google referrers. Pico, the desribed issue in the report above is entirely disconnected from the actual direct link to an image like "www_123sample.com/images/123sample.jpg" In your linked report has been described a hack of a website, where a framed google images link has been hacked, to redirect to a malware infected link. This is entirely different from linking a direct link to a real JPG, which is displayed embedded in a forum thread, which is the whole point of people, who really would like, to post images embedded, which are not hosted on a major image hosting site (read a place, where terms and conditions are subject to change) or the forum site within a user gallery (which entirely equals the former method, but adds an additional inconvenience, as quick uploading by ftp or integrated scripts in the OS, apps or raw converters are not possible). I am out - LUF is a wonderful place with many knowledgable people, much experience to share and great (sometimes lengthy) discussions about technical topics. It is not the most friendly forum, to share photography amongst photographers, which is the reason for some, to limit their image sharing activities or entirely prevent image sharing. I find this is not necessary, as the potential is there and this place is very worth it, especially with the many interesting characters here, both amateur as professionals. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.