posting pictures

[Jeff]

The way it is now is the way it is supposed to be. That colored visited link was an unintended effect of something that was causing a different bug.

There is still stuff cropping up everyday, oh, say like the admins getting systematically banned from the entire server due to what seems an incompatibility with something in simple machines written code that triggered a rule in the server firewall to ban that admins i.p. when they did "something" still unknown.

I tried to relax tonight and go pick up Steve and then watch Jeremy throw at the state dart tournament. Nope. No relaxing. None.

[Jeff]

Uploaded right from phone to gallery. 2.8 mb  on phone.

Finished size 49kb. 

[Magicman]

That colored visited link was an unintended effect of something that was causing a different bug.

OK, the "New" is a feature that I regularly use so I immediately noticed the difference.  We are all learning.  Whatever was one there and now not, we can live without.

[Jeff]

Okay, I'm not understanding.  New posts are still marked new as long as you are logged in. I could incorporate our old yellow new tags in there, but thought I'd stay modern as it seems at least to be adequately marked.

[Magicman]

I have no problem with the New or actually anything.  I just noticed the change yesterday and made a comment.

My only question was that the New wording was darker when unread, and then turned to white after it had been read.  What that gave was an indication whether the "New" had been read or not.  Of course refresh removes the New markers that have been read.

[Ianab]

Just looking at Jeff's picture above, it shows that a decent picture can be relatively small. Pixel wise it's 450 x 800, so looks sensible on the screen, and because the image has a lot of uniform areas of similar colour, it compresses down to pretty small size. (50.7k or .0505 mb) by my reckoning. Either way, not a big deal in terms of server storage and bandwidth. 

Other images may not compress as well. I've found in the past that pictures of trees don't compress well, as they tend to have lots of small details, leaves, twigs, sunlight, shadow etc. Using the same compression settings will result in a larger file than say an image containing a blue drum, a white fridge and brown cabinet. Those large even coloured areas can be compressed into a much smaller file than if they were painted in fine camo detail.  But even then, you might end up with ~100kb, still a very sensible file size. 

Now I see mention of "shrink by X %". If that gets the right size for you, great. But it depends on what size the file started as. Playing with new (but cheap) phone, I can go up to 50 million pixels. That's an 8,000 x 6,000 image, that the phone can compress down to 5-10 mb. WAY overkill for regular screen display, so the default is ~4,000 wide. For a 4.000 pix image, as Jeff suggests, you can shrink to 20%, and be 800 wide. I usually do it though GIMP software, sometimes adjust the image or crop out unneeded parts, and then shrink to 1024 wide, which is "sensible". 

But the % depends on what camera (and settings) you use. If your original image is only 2,000 pixels, you would want to shrink it less. 

Footnote. GIMP is short for "Gnu Image Manipulation Program" and is an open source (free) Photoshop. sort of program. Very powerful image editing, but overkill for just resizing pictures. If all you need is a smaller image, then the phone software or Windows Paint will do the job just fine. I run it because it's free and does everything I need it to, but probably use about 1% of it's functions.