Camera Talk

I haven't been posting much here partly because I have forgotten how to post pictures.

Back when Photobucket worked that way, I sometime used it for posting pictures here. I also remember that there was a system whereby smallish files could be directly posted here. Now that Photobucket is --at least for my purposes!-- dead, is there still a way to post pictures directly here on PhotographyToday?

Philip

Philip, is there a particular reason why you don't post your Flickr photos here?

The BBCode offered by the share icon on a Flickr photo page (the small curling arrow at the bottom right) works fine here:


FXT19161, Trees at dusk by Robert Brazile, on Flickr

Robert

Great, thx Robert, I was posting twice here and there.

Yes, Flickr works fine for me and I can post from there to here. But I tend to want to post different things in the two places. (That was why I used Photobucket.)

I take it that the direct posting method here does indeed not work anymore?

Well, I don't know the answer to that. I'll try it here and we'll see what happens...

Note 1: first file I tried was 1.8M and the tiny error symbol next to it, when poked, said it was too big, the limit is 2M. (huh?)

Note 2: The second file, only 506KB, seems to have worked.

Robert

You can attach photos when you're in the full editor (not "Quick Reply").

There is a 2MB limit on the size of photos. I don't recall the reason, but it seemed like a reasonable amount at the time. I know that sucks, and maybe I'll raise that soon. It just keeps the image folder from becoming absurdly large.

Thanks for the explanations. I forgot about the 2MB limit, and that is probably the reason I was not getting anything to post!
I look forward to contributing again.

. . . and to test it, here's a picture I just posted to Gene Wilburn's B&W Facebook group:

That seems to work!

Thanks, again!

melek wrote:You can attach photos when you're in the full editor (not "Quick Reply").

There is a 2MB limit on the size of photos. I don't recall the reason, but it seemed like a reasonable amount at the time. I know that sucks, and maybe I'll raise that soon. It just keeps the image folder from becoming absurdly large.

Mike, I wasn't confused about the 2M limit (yes, a bit small, but I can understand why you'd have it!) but rather the fact that the image was 1.8M (and reported as such after uploading) and it still reported running afoul of the "2M" limit. I suspect that it either violated some other limit (pixels on a side, perhaps?) or the code checks the size of the image while it's still in the wire format rather than its actual binary size after transmission.

Not a big problem for me either way, as I just embed links to Flickr when needed. But thought you might want to know.

Robert

It might have something to do with the physical dimensions. I think that I'll change those to a high number. I can't recall what I made them, but it's something from the early days of the Internet, like 1,024 pixels.