October 23, 2014, 10:39:39 AM

Poll

Which do you prefer, pick just one.

Do you prefer the large thumbnails (770 X 770) with 6 attachments allowed
47 (59.5%)
Do you prefer the small thumbnails (200 X 200) with 10 attachments allowed
9 (11.4%)
Do you have a fast internet, more than 6 large thumbnails per post is fine?
16 (20.3%)
I don't care either way is fine.
7 (8.9%)

Total Members Voted: 79

Voting closed: August 14, 2014, 12:32:06 AM

Author Topic: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll  (Read 3565 times)

lion rock

  • Canon 70D
  • ****
  • Posts: 276
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2014, 10:26:47 PM »
Thank you CR Admin.  Your decision to revert back to a larger image is appreciated.   I think most of the readers here agree it may be slower, but well worth the slight increase of time just to look at some extraordinary images.
If we can all do a bit more to delete links of included images in our replies, we can further reduce clutter and download time.
-r

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #30 on: August 11, 2014, 10:26:47 PM »

Dylan777

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 4194
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #31 on: August 11, 2014, 11:33:48 PM »
700 wide seems like a comfortable size for a laptop, I haven't tried a mobile device yet though.  As an aside, am I the only one to see threads with pages which wouldn't load?  I had a look at the "we the photographers" thread and about half the pages only came up blank - no content but no 404 either.

Jim

I tried setting multiple sizes, and by trial and error, I found that 700 pixels wide was the maximum width without the system adding a scroll bar at the bottom.  That's where it sits now 700 X 700.  I could make it taller, but did not to do too much at one time.

Current view is better than tiny prev. However, it still looks dull at 700x700. Can you increase to larger size?

700 X 700 is as large as the forum allows.  after that, you have to scroll around to see it.  Might as well click on the thumbnail as do that.

I see. Thanks
Body: 1DX -- 5D III
Zoom: 16-35L f4 IS -- 24-70L II -- 70-200L f2.8 IS II
Prime: 40mm -- 85L II -- 135L -- 200L f2 IS -- 400L f2.8 IS II

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 924
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #32 on: August 13, 2014, 04:18:49 AM »
Hi sagittariansrock.
I see a lot of advantage to this, I often use a slow connection and loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind. When possible I edit photos out of replies with a few exceptions, like I will edit all but one with "I prefer this one most" as the general reply. Also nested replies are a bore, 7 or 8 replies one inside the other in the quotes is mostly superfluous!
I am not talking about the replies during a discussion where a response is broken down in to many parts with a reply to multiple quotes from the same post.
Perhaps we could edit for brevity?
I was also told off on forums years ago for not replying at the top of quotes, Hence my reply style! ;D
Please keep the large size pics as during the times I connect on the slower connections I cannot open large click throughs, and in general I find clicking out of a forum and back in detracts from the reading continuity of the site!

Just a few of my thoughts!

Cheers Graham.

I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

FEBS

  • EOS M2
  • ****
  • Posts: 212
  • Action & Sports
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #33 on: August 13, 2014, 05:09:38 AM »
I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate. Can this be enforced in some way? Does anyone see any advantage to this?

+1
Camera: 1Dx, 5D3, 7D, 300D  | Prime:14 2.8Lii, 24 1.4Lii, 50 1.4, 85 1.2Lii, 100 2.8Lmacro, 300 2.8Lii | Zoom: 16-35 4.0L, 24-105 4.0L, 70-200 2.8Lii, 200-400 1.4x 4.0L | TS-E 24 3.5Lii | Other: 1.4xIII, 2.0xIII, 2x YN568, 6x YN560iii,  YN622TX, 6x YN622, 2x YN560TX, 6x YN603, CamRanger, ...

agierke

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 358
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #34 on: August 13, 2014, 07:34:57 AM »
I'm fine with the large thumbnails but I think max 3 images per post is more than enough. 6 is too much and 10 is completely unnecessary. If you have that many images you want to show, post a link to your flicker page or website.
5D3, 5D2, 5DC, s15mm Fish, 24mm TSE, 35mm F1.4L, 50mm F1.2L, 85mm F1.8, 100mm F2.8L, 24-70mm F2.8L, 70-200mm F2.8L, 580EX, 580EX2, 600EXRT

tolusina

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #35 on: August 13, 2014, 11:28:01 AM »
...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....
I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
 
Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.
 
Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.
 
edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.
 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2014, 11:30:49 AM by tolusina »
40 on 6

jackb

  • SX60 HS
  • **
  • Posts: 1
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2014, 12:26:39 PM »
I agree that quotes in replies should be as brief as possible - without repeated images or unnecessary nesting.

I like larger images so long as there is no horizontal scroll bar.  I have been posting 900x600 images on my website which fit on a 1024x768 screen without scrolling, including the browser menu and task bars.  File sizes, though, should be limited by setting the JPEG quality just high enough to avoid JPEG artifacts at the posted image resolution.  For 700x700 images, I would guess that about 70% quality is high enough.  Perhaps someone could do an objective test.  I have been using 60% quality for 900x600 images on my website and get file sizes of 120-150KB, depending on the image complexity, which results in speedy downloading.

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #36 on: August 13, 2014, 12:26:39 PM »

Valvebounce

  • 1D Mark IV
  • ******
  • Posts: 924
  • Still can't use most of it to it's full potential!
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #37 on: August 13, 2014, 07:02:06 PM »
Hi tolusina.
I believe you are correct about the single call per page, but often replies quoting large numbers of images spread to the next page, and sometimes to a third page, though not often.

Cheers Graham.

I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
 
Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.
 
Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.
 
edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.
7D + Grip, 40D + Grip, 20D, EF-S 17-85 Kit lens, EF 70-200 f2.8 L IS II USM, EF 2x III, Sigma 150-500, Sigma 17-70 f2.8-4 C, 50mm f1.8, 550EX some Filters Remotes Macro tubes Tripod heads etc!
20D, BG-E2N, 17-85mm, 50mm are pre loved. :)
(300D Saved a holiday, E-FS 18-55 Cosina 100-300 retired)

Don Haines

  • Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *******
  • Posts: 3357
  • Posting cat pictures on the internet since 1986
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #38 on: August 13, 2014, 08:04:36 PM »
I think it would be a courteous thing to remove images from replies, in the image galleries. It causes unnecessary repetition and wastes screen real estate.

+1

...And I prefer large image 770 x 770
+2
The best camera is the one in your hands

RustyTheGeek

  • Buy and Sell
  • 1D Mark IV
  • ********
  • Posts: 917
    • View Profile
    • Images I've Shot...
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #39 on: August 20, 2014, 10:50:14 PM »
...... loading the same post full of images over and over can be a bind....
I'm not certain on this, perhaps someone more geeky like Rusty will conform or discredit.

As each unique image has it's own unique URL, when a page calls for that unique URL multiple times, it only gets downloaded once using only the bandwidth required for a single download, the browser then locally positions the display of that single copy in multiple locations.
So, if that ^ is correct, there's no bandwidth penalty when displaying the same image multiple times on the same page, the visual clutter issue certainly remains and is often very annoying even on a desktop, much worse when viewing mobile.
 
Best would be where posters learn how and implement a post/reply method that removes all from the quote that has no relevance to the reply. Being as we are all perfectly flawed humans with widely varied knowledge and experiences, this is not likely to happen.
 
Hmm, to eliminate visual clutter, let's all learn to post at f1.2, narrow focus and depth of field, clutter be banished to Bokeh.
 
edit...... visual clutter applies to text that is needlessly quoted, most especially when multi-quoted, visual clutter is not limited to images.

Confirmed.  That's the way I understand it as well.  The Temporary Internet Cache files on your local hard drive store the image from the first time it loads, then that image file is used repeatedly until it is deleted or it expires from the cache area.  So download performance is not an issue but the amount of post clutter might be a bother.  Personally, I usually edit the quote if it's large and remove all but the relevant bits that relate to my comments.
Yes, but what would  surapon  say ??  :D

tolusina

  • Canon 6D
  • *****
  • Posts: 394
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #40 on: August 21, 2014, 11:18:37 PM »
....  The Temporary Internet Cache files on your local hard drive store the image from the first time it loads, then that image file is used repeatedly until it is deleted or it expires from the cache area....
I learned about browser caching in a rather roundabout way many years back in the WIN 95-98 era, Netscape Navigator, I.E. 4 or 5.
I had built a web page of something or other using some WYSIWYG program, the page included an animated gif.
I copied the page and its files to floppy, took it to a friend's for review/critique/show off/whatever, friend was a NN user.
While viewing the page in NN, I happened to notice the floppy kept getting accessed, didn't do this with I.E..
I somehow reasoned that NN was not caching at all, when the gif called for another frame, NN had to go back to the server (the floppy in this case) and download all over again for each and every repeated display of the gif's frames.
In contrast, I.E. accessed and cached the page in it's entirety, once downloaded, it didn't have to go back to the server again.
 
It may just be that we owe the bandwidth conserving efficiencies of modern browser caching to the snail pace of ancient dial up downloading.
40 on 6

CR Backup Admin

  • Administrator
  • 1D Mark IV
  • *****
  • Posts: 797
    • View Profile
Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2014, 02:17:13 AM »
Allowing 8 large thumbnails seems to have caused a issue with pages loading, the memory setting in the forum software was exceeded.  This caused blank pages in parts of the forum.  We have plenty of memory, so the tech guy went into the innards and increased allowable memory.

Leson learned - fooling with forum settings can have unexpected results ;)

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Small or Large Thumbnails - Poll
« Reply #41 on: August 23, 2014, 02:17:13 AM »