MrEarl

New Image upload size

Recommended Posts

FYI

After fielding a few questions and concerns from  folks about not being able to upload the same size pictures as they have previously been able to upload, I ran some tests and found that it appears a new limit of 10 mb or 1200 x1200 has been set. Upon posing the concern to Peter, he explained briefly that “We went from 80 gig to 300 gig of storage in the past year”  and that we would need to start reducing the file sizes before posting. 

Just wanted to let you all know what I know as I know...

 

  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I talked to him also about not being able to download more than one picture at a time.  His response was that the photo size was too big - however we could still download all of the photos that we want.  Now that really makes a whole lot of no sense at all.  So, I guess that I'll be posting photos one at a time from now on.  What a bunch of hooey.

 

Terry Wiegand

Mayor of Doo Dah

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Terry Wiegand said:

His response was that the photo size was too big - however we could still download all of the photos that we want.  Now that really makes a whole lot of no sense at all.  S

 

Actually it does make sense Terry. You can still upload multiple pictures, just that the pictures that are too large will not be uploaded

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, MrEarl said:

You can still download multiple pictures, just that the pictures that are too large will not be downloaded.

...probably should be  saying upload...

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He tells you that they went from 80gb to 300gb in the last year.  He says the photo sizes are too big - they have to be reduced size wise, however, people can post as many photos as they want.  What part of being asinine do you not understand here?  If the AACA wants to control how much is being posted, then why not put a limit on just how much a person can post each month?  Let's put this in a concept that might illustrate what is being imposed here.  A person walks into a bank with a check for $100.00.  The cashier says, how would you like your money?  Do you want a $100.00 bill or would you like 5 - $20.00 bills or would you like 100 - $1.00 bills?  Personally, I'd opt for the twenties for convenience purposes.  I can just see this picture in my mind's eye - you'd go for the $1.00 bills and then stand there and wonder just how you'll get them stuffed in your wallet.  Do you see anything just a slight bit ignorant with what is being imposed here?  I think any reasonable thinking person will come to the same conclusion.

 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas 

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here's a different approach to this situation.  One hundred dollars is one hundred dollars no matter how it is tallied up.  We're told that the AACA is concerned about storage - really?  Then WHY would we be told that we can post all that we want.  I'll stand by my original comment - this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.  Talk about something being asinine.  This is a textbook example.  I'll post my photos one at a time since they do not care about that😛.

 

Terry Wiegand

Doo Dah America

  • Confused 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry,

 

Call it ignorant or asinine - this is a limitation our hosting company imposed on us, not some arbitrary restriction i pulled out of thin air.

 

People uploading 15mb photos that are 4000h*4000h pixels are clogging our storage.  Its plain and simple.

 

Therefore the solution is to make EVERYONE reduce the size of their photos BEFORE they upload them. 
 

Peter

 

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, old-tank said:

...probably should be  saying upload...

 

and done, thanks Willie

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There also appears to be a total size limit per thread, not just a per photo limit. For example, it used to be 20 megs per post/thread, now it's just under 10. I can post one 9 megabyte photo or 9 one-megabyte photos, but that's it. Even if I try to do it in separate posts, the individual thread has a limit. The total size of all the images and bandwidth is the issue, probably less so than the individual size of the images (yes, you should resize your photos--72 dpi and 1000 pixels wide is plenty for the internet). Cutting down on those ridiculously over-sized photos is a good idea. Downloading those every time someone clicks on a thread really burns through the bandwidth.

 

I should also point out that I'm perfectly OK with this. It gets expensive having all those photos sitting around. My website, which has 100 photos of each of nearly 500 cars and each photo is about half a megabyte, costs a pretty good chunk of change to host but I like having the sold cars available to review as well as current inventory. So I pay the hosting and bandwidth costs. As a non-profit, I understand that the AACA would rightfully want to control the costs that it can and this is a relatively minor handicap to the posters here. Shrink your photos properly and you shouldn't hit the limit on any post.

 

Thanks for clarifying, Peter.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may help explain.

 

There are three pictures below.  The original is 3.8 megabytes. The second is reduced to 1.1 megabytes.  The third is further reduced to 312 Kilobytes.  Image quality is hardly affected.

 

Would you rather have one picture in your pocket,  or possibly 3? 

 

DSC09130.JPG.4f6cf40b86f0e3c084d5ee3e6a7f2a01.JPG

 

x

986376339_petescarreduced0002.JPG.ca4b23070fccd04f72b571dbda8039d5.JPG

 

x

1507386088_petescarreduced0003.JPG.188ae0f6427f2c02709933b6a12e5e02.JPG

  • Like 6
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for that input Matt, the tests I ran didn't seem to limit the total mb's per post or thread.  Maybe more testing is in order. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

yes, you should resize your photos--72 dpi and 1000 pixels wide is plenty for the internet). Cutting down on those ridiculously over-sized photos is a good idea. Downloading those every time someone clicks on a thread really burns through the bandwidth.

 

Bingo.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, MrEarl said:

Thanks for that input Matt, the tests I ran didn't seem to limit the total mb's per post or thread.  Maybe more testing is in order. :D

 

When I posted that pink '56 Desoto for sale a few days ago, I hit the limit--I usually do 21 photos but I could only do 12 or 13 now. When I tried to add more photos in a second post under the first, I was notified that I'd already hit the limit and couldn't upload any more. So I just went with enough photos to stay under the limit. No problem!

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You won't have to do any photo resizing if you adjust your camera settings to take photos in the 3-5 mb range. That's what I did and I've not experienced the size limit problems others have reported. You won't tell the difference when you view them here on the forum.

 

Another advantage of setting the camera to a smaller file size is you can upload multiple photos to the forum much faster.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Matt Harwood said:

3-5 mb is still HUGE for posting on the internet.

 

I agree. Most forums set a limit of about 2-3 mb. I keep my camera set on 5 mb so the photos stored on my camera will print out decent if I need to do that. IF I want large high resolution photos printed I set my camera on 12 mb. 5 mb is a good compromise.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I almost always take pictures in the highest resolution available, as it's crucial for reproduction, enlargement, etc.  However, images that are destined for posting are usually resized (e.g. 1000 x 666) and compressed to ~400K.  99+% of the images posted are for illustrative purposes only; that purpose is not compromised by reformatting the image.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, KongaMan said:

I almost always take pictures in the highest resolution available, as it's crucial for reproduction, enlargement, etc.  However, images that are destined for posting are usually resized (e.g. 1000 x 666) and compressed to ~400K.  99+% of the images posted are for illustrative purposes only; that purpose is not compromised by reformatting the image.

 

This.

 

Our studio photos are taken at about 5 MB in a format that doesn't translate to the internet (.raw). We edit them to about 10% of that size (400-500k) for posting on the website but keep the large sized raw files in case someone needs to see some obscure detail. We can usually zoom in on the raw file and get the detail we need without pulling the car out and taking another photo. But there's no need to put gigantic photos on a message board--they aren't being printed or used for artwork. It's a courtesy to shrink them to size so people don't have to wait while they download and to not burn through all the AACA's bandwidth. Just because we don't pay to use this site doesn't mean it's free and resizing photos is one way we can all help control costs without reducing the quality or quantity of posts. Yes, it's a pain in the butt, but I do it every single time. If you don't know how to do it, there are myriad tutorials out there for just about any software package you're using. I use Photoshop and it takes about 3-5 seconds to load the photo, crop it to size, and re-save as a different file name so I still have the large file as a backup.

 

Original (~5 MB):

DSC_5936.JPG.b1f4c5090add73c8c91d4a5d6a6ea666.JPG

 

Published (~450K):

000H.jpg.43ef2a74880c0e7a7da27e787d4c8a7a.jpg

 

 

 

Edited by Matt Harwood (see edit history)
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My camera is a Nikon and it has a setting in the menu where two images are recorded, raw and jpeg, per click.  I always select jpeg from the computer's hard drive to upload an image for this forum, newsletters, email, etc.  Raw is for hard prints, desktop backgrounds or to study a detail.  Regards, Gary

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

WOW.  Maybe this is a case of just not getting it.  The vast majority of all of the photos that I have ever posted fall into the 4.6mb range.  If I try to post two photos of that size it tells me that there is a limit of 9.77mb.  When I went to school 4.6 twice adds up to 9.2.  I guess the biggest beef that most folks have with this is that there was NO prior notification that these changes were going to take place.  We are told after the fact.  I personally feel like higher resolution photos really show the detail in parts that are being photographed and when information concerning intricate details of something is being related, that detail becomes extremely important to the viewer.  I'm just not buying the explanation that the storage relates 100% to the size of a photograph.  And then we're told that we can post all of the photos that we want.  Hello!  It all adds up at the end of the day no matter what the size of the photograph is.  One can have 30 photographs posted or 450.  Somebody is going to have to tell me just how 450 photos equates to less storage space taken up.

 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I typically crop them to 1000 wide by 750 tall and 72 DPI. That's the same size I use on our website. Big enough to be seen but not crippling in terms of size. The files end up between 400k and 700k, a much more manageable size that doesn't kill detail.


I also use the forum software to shrink it down to 250 or 400 DPI to make it look like a thumbnail so that it doesn't dominate the thread. Click on the photo and you can resize it online and when viewers click on it, it enlarges to full size:

 

000H.jpg.1b88b8e808e5210e4da5f25017d33b03.jpg

Edited by Matt Harwood (see edit history)
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People who have beef with a non profit organization trying to save memory and money should look into donating terabyte hard drives to the server administrator and maybe donate some money for hosting fees.

  • Like 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I always shrink the size before posting and never see the quality diminish. Also for Terry, the total packet size to send the data correctly is somewhat larger than the photo you are uploading

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, Terry Wiegand said:

WOW.  Maybe this is a case of just not getting it.  The vast majority of all of the photos that I have ever posted fall into the 4.6mb range.  If I try to post two photos of that size it tells me that there is a limit of 9.77mb.  When I went to school 4.6 twice adds up to 9.2.  I guess the biggest beef that most folks have with this is that there was NO prior notification that these changes were going to take place.  We are told after the fact.  I personally feel like higher resolution photos really show the detail in parts that are being photographed and when information concerning intricate details of something is being related, that detail becomes extremely important to the viewer.  I'm just not buying the explanation that the storage relates 100% to the size of a photograph.  And then we're told that we can post all of the photos that we want.  Hello!  It all adds up at the end of the day no matter what the size of the photograph is.  One can have 30 photographs posted or 450.  Somebody is going to have to tell me just how 450 photos equates to less storage space taken up.

 

Terry Wiegand

South Hutchinson, Kansas

 

  Dang, Terry, stumped your toe when you crawled out of bed this [yesterday] morning?😂.

 

  Let's get to something SERIOUS!  Like why have my emojis gone anemic?

 

  Ben

 

  

 

  

  • Haha 1
  • Sad 2

Share this post


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