TPF News

[AgentDrex]

I think I'll stick with just linking from somewhere else thank you much.

 

[2WheelPhoto]

Kicking it up a notch as one of my model friends would say

 

[o hey tyler]

I think I'll stick with just linking from somewhere else thank you much.

Me too, I actually like preserving image quality and EXIF data when I post.

 

[Big Mike]

I noticed that on one of the attached photos, the image that pops up when you click on the thumbnail, was still resized. I had to click on it again to see the 'full size' image. So that may be why there is a quality difference (if any).

As usual, when talking about image quality being affected when you upload somewhere...it probably solves the problem if the user properly resizes the image themselves, before uploading.

 

[o hey tyler]

TPF upload: http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachments/photography-beginners-forum/3518d1330642946-tpf-news-dooooooonuts-7iso-100.jpg

Minus Upload: http://i.minus.com/iDJgCvHPPiGKl.jpg

There's quite a quality difference, both were uploaded at 1000px on the longest edge. Put them both next to each other in two separate tabs and click back and forth.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes...I see the difference. I'll look into it.

Although, your linked image took 10 times longer to load.

 

[o hey tyler]

Yes...I see the difference. I'll look into it.

Although, your linked image took 10 times longer to load.

I think they're updating the site. It's working much faster for me now too. It also has EXIF, and no image degradation... Soooooooo yeah.

I'm not knocking on the mods for making more features available, I think that's great and I am sure a lot of people will use it. I just think people should be aware of the differences from using TPF to upload rather than an external host.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, much faster now (although maybe that's also because it's cached)

 

[ekool]

Guys, tweaking these settings. Try uploading another one now and see if you like the results better. As long as the image is less then 2.5MB and less then 6000x4000 pixels it shouldn't degrade quality or strip information.

At least, I'm crossing my fingers

I'm also bumping up the thumbnails to 400 pixels.

For those of you who can hotlink, that's great. Some users have a hard time with that and the attachment system might be easier for them. Just another option really.

 

[KmH]

Yep. I plan to continue hot-linking myself.

 

[KmH]

Second pass.

 

[o hey tyler]

Guys, tweaking these settings. Try uploading another one now and see if you like the results better. As long as the image is less then 2.5MB and less then 6000x4000 pixels it shouldn't degrade quality or strip information.

At least, I'm crossing my fingers

I'm also bumping up the thumbnails to 400 pixels.

For those of you who can hotlink, that's great. Some users have a hard time with that and the attachment system might be easier for them. Just another option really.

I am willing to give it another shot. Again, I am not hating on the mods for enabling this feature... Just want to make that clear. I just prefer IQ and EXIF over ease of use IMO. (Also, lol acronyms.)

 

[KmH]

One variable we have no control over with online photos is what type/quality of display someone is using to look at the photos we put online.

And that's not even mentioning differences in browsers and other variables.

 

[o hey tyler]

Edit: Looks like the issue is fixed. KEWL!

The first big giveaway was that it uploaded at it's native 435.3kb rather than 61.3kb in my initial post.

 

[Big Mike]

Yes, after your initial test, I asked the tech geeks if there was something that could be changes....and there was.

The thumbnails are bigger and the size limit before auto formatting have been greatly increased. Enjoy!