Posted 24 August 2013 - 01:00 AM
Here is an example of an excellent quality photo by Lance Merry
The full size is 800x350 in the gallery, but smaller here and the quality is obvious at this size.
I see many photos on the gallery that are 5 or more times this size. Unless you are printing a poster they do not need to be that large. Of coarse there are exceptions. If they are high quality photos that can be used for ID purposes( scale counts, ray counts) by all means post the best photo you can.
The point is, the gallery archive is taking up as much or more of our server space than both the website and the forum combined. This in turn is costing us money.
So please keep this in mind when posting in the gallery. Use discretion, and when possible be conservative.
Thank you all in advance for trying to conserve our server space.
Posted 26 August 2013 - 11:00 PM
Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:37 PM
Posted 28 August 2013 - 01:58 PM
Nate, no we should not. We are requesting that people keep it realistic. If you have great ID quality photos, we do not want to limit that. What I would like to see is discretion. Is it a photo in a good photo tank, where we can zoom in and count scales? Or is it a run of the mill photo that is of lower quality. We have some great photographers here, and I surely do not want them to resize.
So guys, you do not have to do all of the work that Josh Porter did, but future discretion is advised. If it is a hand shot of a fish, resize it. If it is a habitat shot, resize it. If is a blurry piece of junk, that resembles a fish, don't even post it. But if it is a great ID photo, where one can count lateral line scales, and fin rays, Then have at it
Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:18 PM
[ img] then a url ending in .jpg or other image file type [ /img]
but without the spaces in the [img ] tag name. Bracket img bracket, no spaces. Bracket slash img bracket. (It's hard to type because the reply box auto-converts it).
Posted 29 August 2013 - 04:43 PM
So please keep putting your good pictures up on the gallery archive, we want to be the place to go for fish pics.
Posted 29 August 2013 - 05:39 PM
1) use in regular forum posts
2) gallery, basic whole-fish photo vs scale-count & fin ray count photo.
3) projection on a screen for a club talk
Posted 29 August 2013 - 06:03 PM
- Pictures in forum posts don't need to be any more than about 800 pixels wide because the software re-sizes then down to that anyway.
- If you have good pics of the whole fish then leave it full size, but just clip out all the extra stuff... this makes a huge different in photo size and memory... if the picture is questionable then being any bigger than about 1200 pixels wide is not going to help it.
- Nothing projected needs to be any wider than about 1600 pixels based on the average quality of most projectors
Posted 30 August 2013 - 04:50 AM
Posted 30 August 2013 - 08:53 AM
Did you apply oe of those dimension limits to your gallery? I certainyl see the difference that you are talking about. I can look at this later tonight and try to work through it with you.
0 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users