HELPMEFIND PLANTS COMMERCIAL NON-COMMERCIAL RESOURCES EVENTS PEOPLE RATINGS
|
|
|
Questions, Answers and Comments by Category
-
-
|
Why is the E G Hill 1927 HT Fontenelle not listed?
|
REPLY
|
|
It's under Fontanelle. Which is also the name for the soft spots (little windows) in a baby's head. Strange choice! Perhaps it was named after someone.
|
REPLY
|
|
Pat - you should move your photos to 'Fontanelle'. They are lost where they are now.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I've tried to delete some recent photos that I've replaced with comments, but they won't go.
|
REPLY
|
|
I presume you are opening up the photo, going into EDIT, and then pressing DELETE at th bottom?
If you still can't delete them, we can do it for you.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes; tried again today and succeeded with 2 or 3, and then it stopped working again. The ones I'd like removed are my recent pics of Viridiflora and General Schablikine. Thank you.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
I'm not winning with the Photo side-to-side flip - it worked, but also flipped the photos up/down. Then when I looked at the on them Q & A posting, they hadn't changed (despite the refresh button), but when I clicked on each one to edit it again, they were correct (in the Edit window only).
I have dealt with it, by re-loading the photos after flipping them with Photoshop Elements.
|
REPLY
|
-
-
|
It has been mentioned before, but I can't find it. Can anyone tell me the ideal size for photos for HelpMefind?
Thanks
Patricia
|
REPLY
|
|
Patricia,
Your question is actually a bit more complex than it may seem. We really need an Ezine article to address photo uploading in depth but I'll do my best to answer the size aspect. There are two different "sizes" to consider and both come into play in uploading files to HMF.
The first is size of the image. The image size can range from a small 2 by 2 inch thumbnail to a large 12 by 12 inch photo. These image dimensions are typically quoted in pixels rather than inches or centimeters. HelpMeFind image processing reduces images to roughly 800 by 700 pixels (W x H) although tall, narrow or wide, panoramic photos are reduced proportionally.. This reduction keeps your photo viewing quick and prevents anyone from overwhelming HMF's resources. Ideally, photos should be at least 800 by 700 pixels and no more than 2000 by 2000 pixels.
The second size to consider is the actual file size of the image. A few different elements come into play here starting with the image size discussed above. As one would expect, a small thumbnail sized image does not require a lot of file space while a large image can require an enormous amount of file space. Sometimes many megabytes. The larger the file size of the image you upload to HMF, the longer it takes and the more taxing (and costly) it is on HMF resources. For this reason, file upload size is currently limited to 6 megabytes.
This is probably more than you wanted to know and even this explanation is a bit of an oversimplification. The short answer is, pixel size of around 1200 by 1200 and no larger than 4 megabytes works well.
|
REPLY
|
|
Really people should resize their photos before attempting to upload them, as a digital shot straight from the camera is huge, in both pixels and bytes. Unfortunately many don't seem to know how to do this, even though it's very quick and easy once you know how.
Photoshop CS2 is available as a legitimate free download these days, and would be fine for most people. Very easy to learn for the sort of thing needed in this case. Alternatively, Irfanview will even batch process image resizing if anyone really needs that.
|
REPLY
|
|
Exactly! Thank you for your input.
Most cameras do allow you to select a default image size to use and doing so, if you are so inclined and tech savvy, will create smaller, HMF-ready image files that will not need to be reduced. It's a time saver but using separate image manipulation software, as suggested, allows you to crop the image perfectly and then reduce it. This sequence will produce the optimal image quality for HMF use.
HMF is investigating the possibility of enhancing our photo upload software to allow one to reduce and crop photos but like all our other planned enhancements, it's a matter of time and money. If you've not done so and can afford to, please consider helping support our community funded website.
|
REPLY
|
|
Yes I have been thinking I should chip in. I will be getting a membership upgrade, as soon as I have a few more readies (bit of a kerfuffle this week). Should be fine Monday week, which brings something up.
I don't use credit cards. I'm a bit old school like that. I'm happy to airmail an international bank draft, or the local post office will apparently handle sending payments by Western Union. Do you have any preference?
|
REPLY
|
|
Please accept my apology for making it appear the plea for funding support was directed specifically at you. That was certainly not my intention but I regretfully acknowledge that is a likely assumption many might make: Mea cupla.
You have frequently provided much appreciated insight and experience. Thank you and please do not feel pressured to provide financial support.
|
REPLY
|
|
No apology required. I think chipping in is a good idea anyway. I'm not even that fussed about the extra functionality since I'm not a professional. I just think it's time I chipped in.
|
REPLY
|
|
Love short answers. And I can remember "around 1200 by 1200".
Many thanks for your reply Admin. I appreciate it and can now upload some recent garden photos.
|
REPLY
|
|
Many thanks to YOU Patricia; your continued participation and support is greatly appreciated and valued.
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#9 of 12 posted
1 MAY 15 by
 Jay-Jay
|
Hear Hear! ...I cannot agree more! Thank You Patricia.
|
REPLY
|
|
Thanks Admin and Jay-Jay. I just wish some of the "oldies" would take up the baton again. They have so much knowledge to share and they would lighten the load.
|
REPLY
|
|
Found out something odd about your image resizing code today. I just uploaded my first photo, showing progress of one of my miscreants, and upped it at 1280x960 and 287 kB.
Your site has resized it to 900x675. From what you were saying earlier I now assume that 900 is the actual limit for resized width, rather than 800. Does this also apply to height? Reason I ask is that I've done so much image optimisation in my time that I personally don't mind what the limits are. I can easily resize to suit anyway.
The second point is that although I uploaded at 287 kB, your code has reprocessed the image to 428 kB. So your resize code has cut the pixels down, but has simultaneously increased the download burden for your site by approximately 50%*.
If I'd resized it to 900x675 myself, I could have done the same image at just under 160 kB with no discernible loss of quality.
In other words, if somebody does upload an image suitably optimised for use on a website (ie: .jpg format, saved on medium quality setting) your existing code will nevertheless reprocess it to be less optimal. This seems like a bad idea.
So next question: if an image is upped at < 900px in size, will your resize algorithm just accept it without reprocessing, or will it reprocess anyway? If the former, then there's benefit in people sorting it before uploading. If the latter, then there's really no point in people sorting it themselves, because it'll be a wasted effort.
*For the non-techy types, bandwidth usage is directly related to image size in bytes, not to image size in pixels. Pixels don't matter for bandwidth (although they do matter for browser RAM if you want to go down that rabbit hole, but that's not the website's problem).
|
REPLY
|
Reply
#12 of 12 posted
26 AUG 15 by
HMF Admin
|
Can you please email the original photo to our support department so we can process this on our on-house system to see what's going on. All your points are valid and we need to see where the problem is.
And yes, we did recently increase the maximum allowed photo size as well as the final resized image on HMF. Thanks
|
REPLY
|
|
|
