Digatal Camera thread needs a tidy....?

[kBm]

Just noticed that there is a lot of differing posts in the main forum, some with photos, and request for critical evaluation, some questions about what settings to use, what to buy etc on top of general photo chat.

I noticed that a post made yesterday was bumped off to the 3rd page by the end of the day! Its very busy .

Is another sub-forum or a restructuring required ?

[pboreham]

I think with the complexity facing newbies to SLR and photography that there is a seperate 'SLR/PHOTOGRAPHY FOR BEGINNERS" forum and as on a Web Design forum I am on a "FEEDBACK" forum for people posting pics for feedback.

How and when those would get moved to a Gallery is up for grabs!

[allymac123]

I think splitting the forum wouldn't be too good an idea. I prefer just to look through one section. If there was like a "newbies" section I wouldn't visit it which would mean that i wouldn't offer any help or advice.

It's possible creating a new "picture showing" section would work quite well though actually. As long as it wasn't like the current gallery where people create only one thread and add to it because they just become impossible to load.

[Biscuit761]

Its right just as it is I think.

If it aint broke don't fix it !

Bill

[TarMoo]

The forum could be split into two sections

1. One for viewing photos
2. One for Discussions of cameras, software, newbie questions etc

[kBm]

Originally Posted by TarMoo

The forum could be split into two sections

1. One for viewing photos
2. One for Discussions of cameras, software, newbie questions etc

Thats sounds ideal!

I thinks its very important to have a section for 'viewing photos' other than the Gallery sub forum as people want quick feedback rather via a new thread rather than deep in a gallery.

[bodoman]

Fine as it is, thank you very much

[richard plumb]

there's a gallery section?

[kBm]

Originally Posted by richard plumb

there's a gallery section?

Its here, it called Photo Album (you need to play/ hum your own Tony Hart 'Gallery' music....)

[dave_bass5]

My only complaint is the file/picture size you are allowed to post.
I realise not everyone has broadband (keep up) but its a pain sometimes to have to decrease the image quality to post here (not that i do a lot of it).
It would be great if i could just link to a 800x532 image on my smugmug site without worry that the file size is too large.

Sorry if this has already been addressed and im talking out of my bum.

[senu]

Originally Posted by dave_bass5

My only complaint is the file/picture size you are allowed to post.
I realise not everyone has broadband (keep up) but its a pain sometimes to have to decrease the image quality to post here (not that i do a lot of it).
It would be great if i could just link to a 800x532 image on my smugmug site without worry that the file size is too large.

Sorry if this has already been addressed and im talking out of my bum.

How do you mean? You can post up to a 1024 sized 300Kb ( or thereabouts) . even on a 20" monitor that is large
However we all have the issue of trying to juggle file size and image dimensions without Quality loss
Nothing special about this but It was a huge RAW file 5 min ago! I over did the file size reduction though!...

[dave_bass5]

Its the file size, as in kb's that im refering to, not the pixel size.
like this.



I use LR2 to output 800x532 jpgs that i upload to smugmug. file size is around 400-500kb.

To post on here means going back to the RAW file and, like you say, having to juggle with the output and then posting another version to smugmug just for display here.
Just a bit long winded IMHO

Edited before i get banished to hell (Nikon forum over on dpreview ;-)

[senu]

Originally Posted by dave_bass5

Its the file size, as in kb's that im refering to, not the pixel size.
like this.



I use LR2 to output 800x532 jpgs that i upload to smugmug. file size is around 400-500kb.

Apologies, misunderstood you
I suspect that the file size may be increased as time goes on ( it use to be 200Kb and nobody will quble at 340 TBH) but you can always link smaller images to the larger one ( by click) I dont think most folk mind
Flickr also allow much bigger file sizes than we post here and sometimes , I reduce the file size soley for the purpose of posting here
Saying that , Most of the excellent images we see on here seem to retain their quality at the 300Kb mark.
I frequently wonder just how good the originals must look like..!

[Peakoverload]

Originally Posted by dave_bass5

Its the file size, as in kb's that im refering to, not the pixel size.

Don't upload it to here, simply use the Insert Image tool when you reply or make a post, enter the URL of the photo on smugmug and that's it. Or am I missing something? That's how I embed all my images and I'm sure some of them must be around the 500K mark

[dave_bass5]

Originally Posted by Peakoverload

Don't upload it to here, simply use the Insert Image tool when you reply or make a post, enter the URL of the photo on smugmug and that's it. Or am I missing something? That's how I embed all my images and I'm sure some of them must be around the 500K mark

Sorry, yes, thats what i have done. Its still against the rules though.
At least, it was a while ago.

Senu.
Last time i got told off it was still 200kb. I didnt know it had gone up a bit.
I guess its better but still not quite there.
I can see why it was set up like this originally but these days i would have thought it wouldn't matter too much. And as we are showing our shots to the world giving us the chance to use the highest quality settings seems to me to be something we need.
still, i could be talking out of my bum again. I agree, 300kb should be enough. It's just the extra steps involved to make a smaller version just to post here im having a moan about.