Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Advertisement (gone after registration)

17 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Yes, the digital zoom is clearly meant for users who don't post-process.

But what about your remark about your image uploads? I don't find any refusal by the forum.  and plenty of members are posting in the photoforums and image threads. There is no quota. 

I suspect this is the unfixed long term forum bug that once you have uploaded and posted one image, you have to refresh your browser before you can upload another one that, added to the first (even though a separate post) exceeds the normal posting limit. Yes, LUF members should be aware of this bug, but also yes, this should be fixed. (The latter phrase means, of course, that I keep forgetting my own advice).

Link to post
Share on other sites

As far as I am aware,  that bug has been fixed a while ago. I suspect that the file size limit was exceeded in this case. A 1920 px image can easily be larger than 1000 kB, especially if there is some noise in it.. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, jaapv said:

As far as I am aware,  that bug has been fixed a while ago. 

It hasn't for me - I was caught by it a couple of days ago when I uploaded 3-4 images to the CL image thread - all uploaded as separate posts.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

Strange - I noticed some time ago that the max size was reset automatically when deleting an image. - it may be that it is only partly fixed - moderators have fewer upload limitations. I understand that Andreas cannot do much about such bugs - it is with the software developers. Or it may be that the forum software depends on browser settings, which, I find, are rather dodgy on both Firefox and Safari at present, making me move to Chrome.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Strange - I noticed some time ago that the max size was reset automatically when deleting an image. - it may be that it is only partly fixed - moderators have fewer upload limitations. I understand that Andreas cannot do much about such bugs - it is with the software developers.

I don't understand - what has deleting an image to do with it? I was deliberately uploading 2-4 images as separate posts (because two together would exceed the single post limit), but just forgot to refresh my browser; after refreshing, I could upload another image. No deletion was involved.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I thought you were mentioning the bug that the the forum would not accept the full file size after deleting an image. I have never seen the "series" bug that you mean. That could have to do with your cookies settings.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Advertisement (gone after registration)

23 minutes ago, LocalHero1953 said:

It hasn't for me - I was caught by it a couple of days ago when I uploaded 3-4 images to the CL image thread - all uploaded as separate posts.

Same problem here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

26 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Sorry, I thought you were mentioning the bug that the the forum would not accept the full file size after deleting an image. I have never seen the "series" bug that you mean. That could have to do with your cookies settings.

How would that work? This same bug has been discussed quite a lot on this forum without a solution mentioned that involves cookies. I think it first came up when the new LUF site was launched a year or so back.

Feel free to move this discussion to another part of the forum!

Edit: My 'refresh the browser' solution doesn't involve deleting cookies.

Edited by LocalHero1953
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • jaapv changed the title to Upload bug

That is a plausible mechanism. What does surprise me is that the forum has a problem with it. The limit is set by the LUF, not by me; in my naivety I'd expect the forum to monitor whether I breach that limit or not. From many previous posts, I'm not the only one to have had this problem.

FWIW, I have had the problem before with Chrome and now with the new Edge. I used Firefox for a short while in between, which is the most privacy-conscious browser, but can't remember if that caused trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, jaapv said:

Yes, the digital zoom is clearly meant for users who don't post-process.

But what about your remark about your image uploads? I don't find any refusal by the forum.  and plenty of members are posting in the photoforums and image threads. There is no quota. 

every single time i upload a file it tells me i can upload a max of 1.17mb. i have no idea if that's per post or per day, but i know if i exceed it and delete them to resize and try again, the system thinks i've already exceeded that figure even if i post without them, then edit the post to try again. 

/guy

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Edited by gteague
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, gteague said:

you have to admit that a photo forum for the best quality images in the world makes no sense whatsoever if the users are limited to uploading 1600px images. :) :) :) /guy

Presenting photos at their best has little to do with presenting them "huge". I tailor my photos for posting on line generally at 1600 pixels on the long edge these days. That is large enough and expressed all the detail needed for even a very large display device. When it is helpful to also present a "full resolution" image, I offer a link specifically for that, but don't consume everyone's bandwidth by posting it to a forum. 

G

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

i seem to remember we've been on this dancefloor before my friend. you told me this before, but it did not work because you bump up against the 1.17mb quota or limit depending on whether you use variable size jpgs based on image content and what size drive your computer has.

but i just spent an hour creating an automator quick action (service) to resize to 2480 and another which lets me input the size. now i'm going to try to upload the 3 re-sized files right here. stand by ......

and even if you could upload a single file (the ones i checked resized to about 1mb more or less), this is _not_ representative of the quality of the image and is useless to help other people analyze anything about this. it's exactly the same as uploading to facebook and should be unacceptable for a forum focused exclusively on quality images. 

am i the only one who has this problem or cares about it? last time we talked about this i spent two hours poking around in the hidden cobwebs of the forum rules and stuff and what i found was the only way to upload full size images was to pay like $30 a month or a year or whatever--it didn't matter because there was no way to sign up for this although i wouldn't anyway.

/guy

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Link to post
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, ramarren said:

Presenting photos at their best has little to do with presenting them "huge". I tailor my photos for posting on line generally at 1600 pixels on the long edge these days. That is large enough and expressed all the detail needed for even a very large display device. When it is helpful to also present a "full resolution" image, I offer a link specifically for that, but don't consume everyone's bandwidth by posting it to a forum. 

G

i find it entirely acceptable to operate like dpreview which display a reduced size image, but offers with a few clicks to show you the full image or to download it. it's not that big a deal because i'm beyond the point of needing my files analyzed, but it would be nice to post an image i'm proud of at full quality so it can be appreciated properly and the subtle details included instead of smeared.

/guy

Edited by gteague
Link to post
Share on other sites

15 minutes ago, gteague said:

i seem to remember we've been on this dancefloor before my friend. you told me this before, but it did not work because you bump up against the 1.17mb quota or limit depending on whether you use variable size jpgs based on image content and what size drive your computer has.

but i just spent an hour creating an automator quick action (service) to resize to 2480 and another which lets me input the size. now i'm going to try to upload the 3 re-sized files right here. stand by ......

and even if you could upload a single file (the ones i checked resized to about 1mb more or less), this is _not_ representative of the quality of the image and is useless to help other people analyze anything about this. it's exactly the same as uploading to facebook and should be unacceptable for a forum focused exclusively on quality images. 

am i the only one who has this problem or cares about it? last time we talked about this i spent two hours poking around in the hidden cobwebs of the forum rules and stuff and what i found was the only way to upload full size images was to pay like $30 a month or a year or whatever--it didn't matter because there was no way to sign up for this although i wouldn't anyway.

/guy

 

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

Don't create your own actions, just follow the instructions.  Reduce the file size by JPG compression. You won't be able to see quality loss on a screen. If you want larger, sponsoring members get 2400 kB 

When you upload an image, it will appear in the post as a preview. When you click on it it will open in the high-quality image box. Wait for the enlargement cursor to appear and click once again for full resolution. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, jaapv said:

Don't create your own actions, just follow the instructions.  Reduce the file size by JPG compression. You won't be able to see it on a screen. If you want larger, sponsoring members get 2400 kB.

i haven't the faintest clue what that phrase even means. is that even possible without a camera setting to do it? and who in their right mind would want lower quality jpgs out of the camera unless they were shooting raw?

/guy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes- that is why virtually nobody shoots JPG only You tie one hand behind your back in the use of your images. It is the simplest thing in the world to manage image pixel size, file size and resolution in any postprocessing program. Anyway, I am sure that there are resizing apps for computers I have one on my iPhone that I use to post snaps. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, gteague said:

i haven't the faintest clue what that phrase even means. is that even possible without a camera setting to do it? and who in their right mind would want lower quality jpgs out of the camera unless they were shooting raw?

/guy

Not sure what you are editing your photos in Guy, but think Jaap is referring to how it can be done in Lightroom CC on export... just tick the limit file size box does the trick.

Welcome, dear visitor! As registered member you'd see an image here…

Simply register for free here – We are always happy to welcome new members!

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...