Why do so few post photos on logs?

[+SidAndBob]

Whilst logging a revisit on Out and about in Looe (a pretty Cornish fishing town) after two years I was amazed to see the gallery had no other photos apart from ours. I've seen this many times before at caches in pretty locations. I can totally understand it a less interesting sites of course.

[+The Slaughter Family]

I don't to be honest as I blog my photos. So rather than upload x2, I put a link to my blog page for that cache. There is also the children to consider too, who feature in many pics

[+HouseOfDragons]

There is also the children to consider too, who feature in many pics

 

What do you need to consider?

 

I've put up a few but I tend to forget to upload my photos. Perhaps as a result of this I'll go back and do it retrospectively (if I can remember the caches they belong to!)

[+The Slaughter Family]

too public a place to put them. yes my blog is public, but not as well known iyswim

[+HouseOfDragons]

Ok. Personally I have no problem putting photos of my children up as I see no risk in it whatsoever.

[+*mouse*]

I like to put up photos, especially at a really good cache, but find that the uploader is a bit slow. Plus these days I'll also add photos to facebook, flickr etc..... so it's purely a time thing for me - the same photo in three or four locations gets a bit repetative!

 

I always appriciate it when people take the time to upload a photo to one of my cachesthough, so maybe I should take the time out to load more.

[+The Slaughter Family]

same here mouse. if i have a really fab pic ie landscape etc and I have time i do share. i know that one of our local caches, the owner loved one of my pics and was really pleased when I made it into a birthday card (as it was the reason for the event). He said that it saved him asking for a copy

[+mollyjak]

We like taking and adding photos but I've stopped lately as they take soooo long to upload that I give up.

Have some to put on though and must get around to it

[+Pharisee]

We like taking and adding photos but I've stopped lately as they take soooo long to upload that I give up.

Have some to put on though and must get around to it

Most digital cameras these days are at least 5 mega pixels and a lot are more that 8 so the files are huge. If you make a reduced copy (say 800x600, just a few kilobytes) of the photos you want to post using something like VSO Image Resizer (it's free, by the way) they will upload to the g.com site in seconds. Making the reduced copy only takes the blink of an eye, too.

[+SidAndBob]

We like taking and adding photos but I've stopped lately as they take soooo long to upload that I give up.

Have some to put on though and must get around to it

Most digital cameras these days are at least 5 mega pixels and a lot are more that 8 so the files are huge. If you make a reduced copy (say 800x600, just a few kilobytes) of the photos you want to post using something like VSO Image Resizer (it's free, by the way) they will upload to the g.com site in seconds. Making the reduced copy only takes the blink of an eye, too.

Just refreshed the page before I posted to make sure someone hadn't already said exactly this.

If you upload the full sized photo GC.com will only resize it for you anyway. A resized upload will only take a second or two even if you have very slow bandwidth.

We've used VSO Image Resizer for a long time and would thoroughly recommend it. We also use it to add a watermark to our photos.

[+Team S-J]

I think it's a shame more photo's and stories aren't logged. "TNLN Thanks" really doesn't sum up the adventure of caching. It all seems to be about numbers. Maybe an alternative numbers idea would be to list by the number of bytes logged. That way a good photo means more than a heap of dash & caches.

[+tsiolkovsky]

Whilst logging a revisit on Out and about in Looe (a pretty Cornish fishing town) after two years I was amazed to see the gallery had no other photos apart from ours. I've seen this many times before at caches in pretty locations. I can totally understand it a less interesting sites of course.

 

Well maybe it's cos we're always forgetting our cameras? I know I am.

[+Lost in Space]

Well maybe it's cos we're always forgetting our cameras? I know I am.

 

Now there's a thought for the Product Planner Gurus: a dedicated GPS receiver with an integrated camera...........

 

PS Of those who do post photos, how many post pictures of the scenic views? Mostly they are photos of the kids Aimie, Cuthbert, Rupert etc all trying to hold onto the box at the same time............(The Slaughter Family excepted, of course)

Edited August 22, 2009 by Lost in Space

[+*mouse*]

Now there's a thought for the Product Planner Gurus: a dedicated GPS receiver with an integrated camera...........

 

They exist already......

 

Oregon 550

Edited August 23, 2009 by *mouse*

[+The Slaughter Family]

I use Picasa a free download from Google to edit etc and resize pics. Fab it is too

[+fellsmanhiker]

I along with another fellow Cumbrian team seem to have a habit of killing a topic dead,but will give this one a go anyway.

Being interested in photography,for me the taking and uploading of pictures is one of the best parts of the game,and I am grateful when visitors to our caches also take the "trouble" to do likewise,I have rarely found it to take longer than a minuet or so,(depending on the time of day) for the uploading process to complete and have as yet never needed to downsize anything,I find the gallery something to look back on with my account and that of Tashington we have around 3000 pictures in the Gallery.

[+kernow krawlers]

We also forget our camera on most occaisions. Gonna try much harder in future as I know we like to see photos in logs of our caches.

[+dino-irl]

I'll add a vote for IrfanView...another free but very powerful little tool I like to use

[lakeuk]

I try to post photos with my logs where I find they add value, I do find the upload slow even when I modify the photos to fit in with the specs.

 

I am think though whether in my log to put a link to my Picasaweb album instead as all my photos are geotagged and sync'd to my local Picasa. I think this would give a better experience to the viewer as they can see exact where the photo was taken, get an idea of the route I went. I can label all my photos locally and they're automatically sync'd against my online copies (excellent for correcting word blindness)

 

What would be good is instead of uploading a photo, you have the option to provide a link to the photo on a service like picasaweb/flicker, to the end viewer it looks like part of geocaching.com but saves on their bandwidth plus they can use addition info like geotags to enhanced the log.

 

http://picasaweb.google.com/David.J.Whiteh...0808WetSleddale

[+*mouse*]

It's a good point about resizing - I don't always do it when I probably should. Takes a few clicks in PSP....

 

I also think that the number of photos posted often correlate with the quality of the cache.

 

I'll put my hands up and admit I've hidden a few lame caches in my time - they have very few, if any photos in their galleries.

Conversely caches where I have put more thought etc in to them seem to have far more pictures added to the gallery. I can only speak for myself, but it seems to correlate quite well.

 

Likewise I'm not likely to add a photo to a cache I found mediocre, but if I like the cache the then chances I will add a photo or two to my log are greater (assuming I remember to take my camera with me that is! )

[+seacarrot12]

 

Well maybe it's cos we're always forgetting our cameras? I know I am.

 

Yes exactly, I left mine next to a cache in Rutland. long gone now.

[+Teacosies]

Slow uploads may be caused by file size -

 

Why would I need to change my photos?

When your camera captures a photograph the resulting size can be in excess of 3mb (3000kb). When we resize the photo we can reduce the size to less than 100kb with little or no perceptible visual difference. The smaller size photos are no longer usable to print out but when viewed on a web site you will not tell the difference. Have you ever viewed wallpaper that scans from side to side to build up the picture, or tried to look at a hi-res photo that takes ages to load? Well this is why we should not use normal photos on web sites due to the slow loading times. Resized photos load almost instantaneously and take up much less space on the server making them quicker.

 

Picture resizing and watermarking

In Picasa , select your pictures and using -

• File,
   
  
• export picture to folder dialogue,
   
  
• Image size options = 800 Pixels,
   
  
• Image quality = Minimum,
   
  
• add a watermark text if required .
  

Then click OK to save the photos that are now ready to post on the site and never fear the originals are still intact.

[+fellsmanhiker]

Further to my above posting,I have just uploaded a pic for experimental purposes to one of my own caches,I timed it at 65 seconds,and this is on possibly one of the busiest periods,my camera is set at 6m pixels and maximum recording quality,I am sure it would take longer to mess about with this downsizing malarkey,also I like to view pictures that are uploaded with the log,not navigate away to somewhere else.

[+uktim]

Whilst logging a revisit on Out and about in Looe (a pretty Cornish fishing town) after two years I was amazed to see the gallery had no other photos apart from ours. I've seen this many times before at caches in pretty locations. I can totally understand it a less interesting sites of course.

 

Because we're moving onto the next days work or play rather than bragging about yesterdays activities

[+Team S-J]

Why use a camera. I doubt anyone hasn't got a camera phone. As for resolution. In terms of resizing has anyone looked at the minimum resolution recommended by the online print people. You'd be amazed at how low a resolution you actually need for 5x7 prints. In fact unless you are doing poster size prints the only reason to have mega mega resolution camers is to crop them down to show just what you need.

I've taken this from the site I use (Truprint)

 

If you plan to order prints or create gifts using your digital photos, we recommend the following image sizes for best results:

 

Print Size Minimum image resolution required

6" x 4" 360x540 pixels

7" x 5" 450x630 pixels

10" x 8" 720x900 pixels

11 x 14 Posters 990x1260 pixels

12 x 18 Posters 1152x1728 pixels

16 x 20 Posters 1536x1920 pixels

20 x 30 Posters 1920x2880 pixels

Wallet Prints 180x270 pixels

Photo Gifts 600x900 pixels

4x8 Photo Cards 426x640 pixels

5x7 Folded Cards 375x525 pixels

5x7 Postcards 600x840 pixels

4.25x6 Postcards 480x720 pixels

4x6 FlipBooks 360x540 pixels

5x7 FlipBooks 450x630 pixels

MemoryBooks 1233x1639 - 1024x1280 pixels

Notebooks 480x480 pixels

Notebooks with full photo cover 1000x1350 pixels

Notepads 370x370 pixels

Stickers 370x370 pixels

Notebook 480x480 pixels

 

These are a lot lower than you'd imagine.

I'd also recommend VSO resizer as other have. I generally copy the pictures I want into a temporary directory "fix" them then resize them to 640 wide. Uploading is then really quick.

[+Team S-J]

I do fall into the category of taking photos of the cache rather than the view. I will try to take more appropriate pictures next time. I also agree with mouse that the number of pictures is related to the quality of the cache. Can we search by number of pictures per cache?

[+Gushoneybun]

We try to add photos but it does come and go. We took 42 photos today, I will work through them and upload a few, but we have about 200 from the last week or two so some will get missed, that reminds me we need an external hard drive as ours is running out of space for some strange reason . There are times when we forget to take a camera so none get done, or we just use a phone so only added to YOSM's and earthcaches in these cases.

[+Maple Leaf]

I usually have my camera with me and take photos if there is an interesting feature or a nice view. As I cache for quality rather than quantity I usually find this (I thought that was what caching was about!) and most of the times I have identified the caches I want to go to before hand rather than just pick the nearest off the list - so am normally fairly lucky with finding a photo opportunity. (

I don't think any of my gallery photos are of the caches themselves - they are either views or TB's if on specific missions.

 

I always resize my photos to 600x450 and don't have any problems uploading them.

[+chizu]

We've still to process our photos for the Mega event and subsequent trip to Cornwall. I've uploaded some I took on my phone but those on the fancy camera are still to be done (including those needed for the Earthcaches - sorry Earthcache owners!!)

[+Pharisee]

Further to my above posting,I have just uploaded a pic for experimental purposes to one of my own caches,I timed it at 65 seconds,and this is on possibly one of the busiest periods,my camera is set at 6m pixels and maximum recording quality,I am sure it would take longer to mess about with this downsizing malarkey,also I like to view pictures that are uploaded with the log,not navigate away to somewhere else.

Out of interest, I've just done something similar. Timed from clicking on the 'upload image' button on the cache page, to select and upload a 6Mb .jpg image (On 10 megabit Virgin Media cable broadband connection) took 2 minutes-26 seconds. Starting again at the same place, to select the image, make a reduced 800x600 copy using VSO Image Resizer and upload it to the cache page... 47 seconds.

Go on... you know it makes sense

[+the pooks]

This is my method: Say you have pictures in a folder eg 20090824 Mega. Create a folder 20090824 Mega small. Select all the photos in 20090824 Mega and right click>send to>email recipient this invokes the shrinking process (Windows XP, Outlook Express). There is an option to select what size the resulting images need to be. I usually select small (600x480 pixels). You get an email with all the resized images as attachments. On this email select save attachments and save to that folder 20090824 Mega small. Delete the email. You now have all your original images resized in the folder 20090824 Mega small and henceforth a doddle (and quick) to upload to your logs/webpage etc. The images are tiny (typically 40-60 kB) and easy to download as well. This is how I do it and it works well for me.

 

PS: Note how I title my folders with the date in reverse/otherwise order so that folders are listed in chronological order by default.

[+Fuchsiamagic]

I take and publish as many photos near cache sites as I can, providing they are interesting or enjoyable enough as I think it helps other cachers. Before I search for a cache, I always look through the gallery to get some idea of the local environment near the cache, so to this end - and I know I'm going to upset a few people here, - I don't want to see pictures of just their dogs! (Sorry Sid and Bob)

[+fellsmanhiker]

Further to my above posting,I have just uploaded a pic for experimental purposes to one of my own caches,I timed it at 65 seconds,and this is on possibly one of the busiest periods,my camera is set at 6m pixels and maximum recording quality,I am sure it would take longer to mess about with this downsizing malarkey,also I like to view pictures that are uploaded with the log,not navigate away to somewhere else.

Out of interest, I've just done something similar. Timed from clicking on the 'upload image' button on the cache page, to select and upload a 6Mb .jpg image (On 10 megabit Virgin Media cable broadband connection) took 2 minutes-26 seconds. Starting again at the same place, to select the image, make a reduced 800x600 copy using VSO Image Resizer and upload it to the cache page... 47 seconds.

Go on... you know it makes sense

Wow,that's nearly 18 seconds faster than my way,if I uploaded three in this new fangled manner I could save almost a full minute,what ever will I do with all this newly found time

[+SidAndBob]

I take and publish as many photos near cache sites as I can, providing they are interesting or enjoyable enough as I think it helps other cachers. Before I search for a cache, I always look through the gallery to get some idea of the local environment near the cache, so to this end - and I know I'm going to upset a few people here, - I don't want to see pictures of just their dogs! (Sorry Sid and Bob)

You're lucky then, because we don't do that.

[+Smithbats]

We have a picture of our daughter holding each cache we have found, would they be okay to be uploaded or are we likely to upset people by showing a pic of the actual cache container?

 

Sorry, we are new to this so I am not sure of the rules.

 

Nicky

[+Fuchsiamagic]

We have a picture of our daughter holding each cache we have found, would they be okay to be uploaded or are we likely to upset people by showing a pic of the actual cache container?

 

Sorry, we are new to this so I am not sure of the rules.

 

Nicky

It's normally OK to show the cache container, but not in a way which shows exactly where it is. Some containers are custom-made however and are quite a surprise when found, like a big plastic insect for example. It's best not to give the game away by showing these types.

Edited August 24, 2009 by Fuchsiamagic

[+Smithbats]

We have a picture of our daughter holding each cache we have found, would they be okay to be uploaded or are we likely to upset people by showing a pic of the actual cache container?

 

Sorry, we are new to this so I am not sure of the rules.

 

Nicky

It's normally OK to show the cache container, but not in a way which shows exactly where it is. Some containers are custom-made however and are quite a surprise when found, like a big plastic insect for example. It's best not to give the game away by showing these types.

 

Thank you I will upload our pics and hope for the best.

[+Lost in Space]

Whilst logging a revisit on Out and about in Looe (a pretty Cornish fishing town) after two years I was amazed to see the gallery had no other photos apart from ours. I've seen this many times before at caches in pretty locations......

 

As you can see from the replies, people, (those that do post pictures), are more interested in posting pictures of their kids, dogs etc............

[+Original A1]

I take photos when I have the camera with me and want to, but pretty much of views around the cache as I usually do it alone and don't want to give away the exact cache location. For me, visiting the cache is about the journey as much as the find and so I try to show others what that journey involved. That said, I like to see cache listings where there might be winter pictures as I visit in the summer. I'd put "and vice versa" but I haven't done proper winter caching yet, having only started in February (ok, tail-end of winter then!).

 

The last pics I posted are of my new Travel Bugs (hint hint).