I have a new digital camera and I'm finally ready to upload the new pics of all the crap I've done to the Z in the last 6 months, And the blasted thing tells me the photo's are an "unacceptable form" or some crap like that.

What do I have to do NOW to get some pics into my gallery?????

Signed, Frustrated and ready to throw my new camera through the F@#$ing wall......Dave.

Dave:

What format are your picture files?

.JPG and .BMP files should be OK. There may be others, but I don't know.

Image size is limited also. 1024 pixels X 768 pixels is the max unless something has changed recently.

File size is also limited. I think the max is 2mb, but it's better if your file size is much smaller (like less than 400kb). The image will load much faster for people viewing your photos (and the upload will be much quicker for yourself)

What kind of camera did you get?

It's an Aiptex Pocket camX small but nice. Have pics or video on a small 16mb disk.

I think I found the problem. My computer says it's a file and NOT an image.

it is a JPEG FILE not a JPEG image. So I have to convert them to BMP IMAGES

I got it figured out but I don't like it

It is probably best to upload your files in the best quality possible, as IIRC the system compresses them AGAIN with JPG compression which will lose a bit of quality for the sake of a lower file size. If you upload a JPG that has already been severely compressed then it's going to compress it again, giving you a dodgy looking photo. Case in point: http://www.classiczcars.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=13770&size=big&cat=3205&page=1

If that makes any sense...

Lachlan:

Well sure that picture is dodgy, it's only 19kb in size for a 640 X 480 image. The word miniscule comes to mind. (reminds me of that fish you caught)

Many avatars are larger than 19kb and they are a maximum of 150 X 150 pixels

A 400kb image (as I suggested) will still give a very reasonable image even if it gets compressed to 100kb (or less).

Here's one that is only 54.7kb and as you can see, the detail is much better even at this small file size. http://www.classiczcars.com/photopost/showphoto.php?photo=8386&cat=3109&page=1

Hi Carl, my point was simply that the system compresses your pictures to the same quality level regardless of what you've uploaded. Whether you compress your pictures before you upload them or not doesn't matter - all it will do is generate more artifacts as JPG is lossy in its compression... I think you already know this, but the more times you compress a JPG the worse it will look, with minimal reduction in file size.

P.S. I was cheating a bit when I used that picture for reference - it was uploaded when Mike had the compression setting for the galleries up higher than what it is now.

It's an Aiptex Pocket camX small but nice. Have pics or video on a small 16mb disk.

I think I found the problem. My computer says it's a file and NOT an image.

it is a JPEG FILE not a JPEG image. So I have to convert them to BMP IMAGES

I got it figured out but I don't like it

What operating system is on your computer? I think this site assumes you have windows and treat the files as such.

If you have windows XP you can download the free image resizer from here . once installed you can select the files and resize them all to a size that the website will accept.

If you have a Mac, then you will have to resize the pictures by some other means, and add ".jpg" to the end of the filename, as this website may not know what sort of file it is when it is on a mac (mac os store the file type differently than windows, and this site assumes windows).

That XP Power Toy image resizer is great.

Lachlan:

I understand what you mean about .jpg files, but there really is no point in uploading 1mb or greater images (which many common camera's can easily take) if it's going to be compressed anyway. I think I left enough room for a "quality" image in my suggestion of 400 kb images

My point was for some of the guys to have a heart and consider the members on dial-up connections (especially regarding attachments when uploading large files, or inserting images hosted off site into posts, etc.) There is no compression done by the site for atachments or inserted images, and some people stuff a ton of higher res. images into posts and I've seen it take 10 or 15 minutes for a page to load only to notice that A) the pictures weren't THAT interesting, or more commonly a lower res picture would have be just fine and wouldn't have wasted so much d/l time.

When I take pictures w/ my cheapo 3.2 megapixel camera I end up with 800kb to 1mb files which I reduce by 50% before uploading. Never had a single complaint (of my own, or from anyone else) of poor quality of pictures posted on the website. I can't see any real benefit to spending twice as much time uploading.

BTW, I'm very disappointed that you didn't respond to my "fish" comment.

I use photoshop to reduce, but the other one works great too.

Essentially, take all pictures on your camera on the highest resolution and resize them on the pc...in my gallery all the newest pictures are 5 megapixel reduced to like 150kb each...IMO they look pretty damn good for tiny size pictures.

as long as a jpeg is in the format picture_name.jpg it is considered a jpeg image OR file...there is no difference.

Reducing them is good for the website too, as making them only 150kb versus the 3+ mb they are originally lets more picture post pictures before Mike runs out of space!

Mike--I'd like to delete a couple of my pictures, can we PM you to do this? or....

Victor Laury usually handles the Photo gallery, but I'm sure Mike could do it if you can catch him.

the only way i could upload pics was to set my camera at low resolution. the pics i took at medium resoution i couldn't figure out how to upload.i downloaded irfanview and turned pics to thumbs but then i couldn't find them to upload.i'll try the resizer.

Carl, yes you are wasting time if you upload 1MB (or larger!) images, but if you have a lot of images and a fast Internet connection, you're wasting more time resizing them all - it's a matter of perspective that one... Anyway yes you are right - 400KB is more than enough for a 640x480 image. It's probably even enough for a 1600x1200 image without any noticeable loss! I wasn't disputing that! I was just pointing out how the system works so that people don't fall into the trap of compressing images too much. The comment that sparked my reply was "The image will load much faster for people viewing your photos". Doesn't matter if you upload a 400KB image or 1MB as in the end they will be pretty similar in size. Will take twice as long to upload though as you said!

I couldn't agree with you more about attachments to posts. It's a different kettle of fish - any size - there! :nervous:

Point taken regarding the " images will load much faster" comment. I guess I was getting ahead of myself. That applies more to attachments. Resizing is quick and easy with the free XP Power Toys Resizer tool. Takes just seconds to do a whole batch of images.

PS That "kettle" would make a mighty "thin" fish soup. Maybe we should adjust the recipe, or use a thimble instead of a kettle? :cheeky: