Not to be mean, but can we block out posts?

[Plynkes]

Having just looked at a recent thread of a certain poster there were nearly twenty pictures on a page, all over 700kb in size (one over 900k). I think that's the cause of the problem. There really is no reason why they need to take up so much memory.

With about twenty seconds in a graphics package I got 705kb down to 67kb, and the photo looks no different to the human eye. Simple!  

[Ray Rivers]

Do we really want LAF turning into TMP, with stifles, counter-stifles, blocks, reporting, and all that shlocky drama

Not only NO... but HELL NO!   

I want to see nice big pics, and lots of them. And I want to see them on the LAF, not have to go tramping off to somewhere else unless I really have to. Unlike some forums, we have the ability to post pictures on the LAF, it is silly not to use it.

Totally agree.  Pictures!     It's why I come here.

Now, there is a lot of stuff around here I don't like (and I'm not talking just pictures), but its no big deal.  That is why you have a roller ball on your mouse.  You just scroll right past it.

Personally, when I come to the forum, the first thing I look at is "Show new replies to your posts."  I always post on things I find interesting because I know that when I go to this feature on the forum I will return to a thread which I want to follow.  Then I go to the "View the most recent posts on the forum" feature and see the last 10 pages of comments/photos posted on the forum.  Here is where the old roller ball comes in handy. Most of the stuff is just chit chat that I am not interested in.  Roll that ball!!!!  If there are photos of things I'm not interested in... Roll that ball!!! I go past it before it even loads.   

So folks lets keep things in perspective.  If someone wants to babble on and on, or post photos of things you have no interest in... who cares?  Just roll that ball!     Getting personal is not very kewl though. 

So... let's keep LAF the civil, awesome place that makes this forum such a joy to participate in.  

[joroas]

So... let's keep LAF the civil, awesome place that makes this forum such a joy to participate in. 

Too right!!!!!   

[Silent Invader]

Having just looked at a recent thread of a certain poster there were nearly twenty pictures on a page, all over 700kb in size (one over 900k). I think that's the cause of the problem. There really is no reason why they need to take up so much memory.

With about twenty seconds in a graphics package I got 705kb down to 67kb, and the photo looks no different to the human eye. Simple!  

In the past I have noticed that some graphics programs (such as the ones that come free with cameras) will reduce an image size (in pixels) but don't actually reduce the file size (in kb).  I found that if I opened, saved and closed the reduced size image in MS Paint then the file size reduced as well.

[oldskoolrebel]

Hello all, I agree with the sentiments that blocking individuals is the completely wrong way to go.

I'd also point out that there are several issues raised in this thread that are pertinent; although this thread might actually dissuade some individuals from posting work on LAF. I echo the posts that call for highlighting examples of 'good practice' when posting pictures... suggesting that all individuals reduce the size of images and providing example sizes to techno-phobes  e.g. 800x600 or even 640x400 pixels which should reduce the file size and loading times considerably.

One of the things I love about LAF is that it provides an opportunity for painters and scenery builders of all abilities to post work & receive fair and constructive criticism. This is a vital part of the community's spirit which, if absent, I fear would ruin the place we've all come to love.

Just my thoughts, I hope I haven't cause offense to anyone.

Cheers
Andy

[Plynkes]

Silent Invader, I forgot to point out that I reduced the file size of the image from 705kb to 67kb without actually reducing the pixel size of the image at all. You can still have big pics without them costing the earth in file sizes.

[Silent Invader]

EDIT:  Thanks Mr P, I did understand that from your post.  Meanwhile I was typing out what follows to demonstrate your point.  

In the past I have noticed that some graphics programs (such as the ones that come free with cameras) will reduce an image size (in pixels) but don't actually reduce the file size (in kb).  I found that if I opened, saved and closed the reduced size image in MS Paint then the file size reduced as well.

Just a little demonstration to show that reducing the pixel size won't necessarily reduce the data file size.  (Image is mine from the last LPL)


The master image for this demo; sized at 683x566 and 103kb:



The master image then opened in MS Paint, reduced to 50% of pixel size, then resaved; sized at 342x283 and 39kb.



The master image then opened in GIMP, reduced to 50% of pixel size, then resaved; sized at 342x283 and 111kb.



The image already manipulated in GIMP to half pixel size, then opened in MS Paint, saved and closed; sized at 342x283 and 41kb:



Note that the 50% pixel size copy that was converted using GIMP actually has a larger file size than the master at 100% pixel size!!!

As Mr Plynkes has pointed out, it's not enough to manipulate the image size, the file size needs to be attended to as well.

  

[Calimero]

Silent Invader, I forgot to point out that I reduced the file size of the image from 705kb to 67kb without actually reducing the pixel size of the image at all. You can still have big pics without them costing the earth in file sizes.

How can we do it? Any links to "how too"?

[Michi]

Michi's posts got me banned from Lead Adventure at my old job

I´m very sorry to hear that. Please accept my apologies. I do not want to get anybody in trouble, though I admit I never thought about people probably browsing the web at their work. I am not allowed to and thought this to be common practice. There are forum rules that ban porn and such that made me check with Alex before I ever posted pics of nudes. He found it alright, because nudity isn´t porn and there are much better artists who showed a lot of flesh in their paintings already centuries ago. Of course I could stop posting photos of painted females and show only my more conservative work. Another option could be that I will keep in mind to add an adult label to specific future postings. Would you agree?

By the way: Contact Photographer via PM and ask him to shrink his photos a bit if you are bothered. He will perfectly understand the issue, I think...

[Silent Invader]

How can we do it? Any links to "how too"?

I was typing soemthing out as you posted.  See my post above 

[Calimero]

yep, saw that after I posted, thanks

[Sinewgrab]

Another option could be that I will keep in mind to add an adult label to specific future postings. Would you agree?

To my mind, this would actually be the best way. That way, it doesn't stop you from posting so that everyone can see those fleshtones you embarrass us with (how DO you do that?) but not lead to issues for those viewers who can hit the internet at work during lunch hours, but have a Big Brother program in place to track you, it being all big corporation and all.

I never actually thought of asking you to do that, and that...that's embarrassing there.

[Calimero]

... back on topic...

I like to see pictures, lots of pictures. It’s what give me the drive I need to paint figures. I also found that a lot of stuff can be inspiring even though the execution is not perfect. That being said, my computer isn’t particularly recent (it’s a Pentium IV) and I have no real problem navigating LAF. I have a problem getting to a certain German pictures hosting site that some members are using though. I can’t go there (either by using Internet Explorer or Firefox). I’ve "tried too hard" the last time, ended up with a virus and was forced to re-install Windows...

[Hammers]

A friendly hint by PM to the people you have in mind to make their images web friendly will help most of the time. If you get no response you can drop a line to the relevant moderator.

Also, I think it is most unkind to deride a fellow member for your opinion on the quality of his/her painting. Try some helpful comment.

[Kestrel]

I'm suddenly feeling a little guilty as I'm recalling a thread I posted not so long ago with rather a lot of images - Although no where near as many got taken, I'm editing my way through them at the moment

That said I know myself if I am going to be posting a lot of images to make sure to keep sizes down (although size down appears to be a relative term looking at this thread) to try and avoid problems for anyone who wants to look at them - After all the object of the exercise is for people to see them.

Anyways I must get back to the Blam photos, I'll let you know when I'm done...