Resizing of Pictures by Website

[+Sweeney Toddlers]

Up until one of the recent website changes I was able to upload pictures to my logs, without the website resizing them,provided that the total file size was less than 200kb. This was great, for instance, for panoramas.....where the image is useless unless much wider than 800 pixels.

 

Is this just a temporary blip with the website or a more permanent "downgrade"?

 

At the moment it has stopped us from submitting any picture until we know how to upload wider/higher images.....

 

If the requirements have been downscaled can anyone tell us what the new rules are? A major pain as we were starting to develop an interest in photography and were posting lots of pics. 800 x 600 pics are a waste of time.....

 

Any info gratefully received.

 

The Sweeney Toddlers x

Edited March 6, 2012 by Sweeney Toddlers

[Moun10Bike]

The original will only be resized if the long edge exceeds 2048 pixels. Are you sure that you are looking at the original and not one of the resized versions that are used for display in various settings?

[+The A-Team]

Up until one of the recent website changes I was able to upload pictures to my logs, without the website resizing them,provided that the total file size was less than 200kb.

Actually, it was 125 kB previously. Anyway, the Feb 14th site update actually increased the allowed size, so you should be seeing less resizing, not more:

Now resizing image uploads if the file is larger than 1mb or the width/height is greater than 2048 pixels

[+Sweeney Toddlers]

Thanks both for your comments. Although there was a previous stated limit of 125kb you could actually squeeze anything below 200kbs in. Our routine upload size was 799 x 599 pixels with the image quality downgraded to around 96% to get the image uploaded. For panoramas we could get anything up to a width of 1200 pixels in provided we stuck to the less than 200kb rule.

 

Everything has now gone totally pear-shaped.

 

Please see our log from the 29th September 2011 for the cache "On the Way to The Top" (you'll need to scroll down a bit). The third picture called "from the top" was uploaded at the time. We have uploaded exactly the same picture today and called it "testing to prove a point". The file is 1200 pixels wide but only 176kb so should uploaded without difficulty. As you can see, the site has resized it both on the page and in our gallery to be too small to see.

 

It is exactly the same file as was uploaded in September. Clearly there is a problem. We have the same issue trying to upload 777x599 pictures even if they are <200kb.

 

Does anyone know what the issue is or how this can be escalated/ fixed?

Edited March 6, 2012 by Sweeney Toddlers

[+The A-Team]

The file is 1200 pixels wide but only 176kb so should uploaded without difficulty. As you can see, the site has resized it both on the page and in our gallery to be too small to see.

I'm not seeing this. When I bring up the new image (http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/6b317912-fad4-4cad-a38b-b8ad241a3214.jpg), it shows as being 1200x427 and 174 kB as expected.

[+Sweeney Toddlers]

Just to add to the intrigue, although the picture won't show up full size when you click on it in the webpage or in our gallery it is actually full sized where it is stored http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/6b317912-fad4-4cad-a38b-b8ad241a3214.jpg

 

This seems to be a problem with how the website is showing images to us. It's not firefox though because the problem is the same with explorer.

 

What's going on?

[Moun10Bike]

There is not a bug here. The system is working as designed. When you click on an image in the gallery, you are taken to one of the resized versions of the image. In this case, the "large" (but not original) size at http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/6b317912-fad4-4cad-a38b-b8ad241a3214.jpg. To see the original size, you need to click on the log that contains the image and click on the image there. You are then taken to http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/6b317912-fad4-4cad-a38b-b8ad241a3214.jpg.

[+Sweeney Toddlers]

There is not a bug here. The system is working as designed. When you click on an image in the gallery, you are taken to one of the resized versions of the image. In this case, the "large" (but not original) size at http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/large/6b317912-fad4-4cad-a38b-b8ad241a3214.jpg. To see the original size, you need to click on the log that contains the image and click on the image there. You are then taken to http://img.geocaching.com/cache/log/6b317912-fad4-4cad-a38b-b8ad241a3214.jpg.

 

Thanks for this. Okay, I recognise that it has been "designed" this way and isn't a bug but I have to (very respectfully) suggest that it seems to be poor design.

 

For me, or someone else, looking at the cache page they could previously look at the picture the way it should be by clicking on the link. Now it is a three piece process of clicking on the link, then selecting "view the log" and then clicking on the picture in the log to get to the full sized image. It's exactly the same picture as before but his seems a large step backwards. It would actually be better for me to set up a FlickR, or other, account and hyperlink to the image there. That would be much easier for visitors who want to see the log pictures but much more work for the cache logger.

 

Meantime I guess I'll need to stop uploading pics with my logs but is there any way to feed this back to the designers to see if it possible to put things back as they were.....?

 

Many thanks!

 

The ST's x

[Moun10Bike]

The resized images were implemented to give a more consistent viewing experiencing to users across a variety of upload sizes and viewing devices/resolutions. I agree that if you want people to only see your full-sized images, then you are better off uploading the images to a third-party image hosting site and providing links to them in your logs.

[+Sweeney Toddlers]

The resized images were implemented to give a more consistent viewing experiencing to users across a variety of upload sizes and viewing devices/resolutions. I agree that if you want people to only see your full-sized images, then you are better off uploading the images to a third-party image hosting site and providing links to them in your logs.

 

Okay, will do.............

[+Lil Devil]

I like the current implementation. When viewing a log, I do not want pictures to be huge and take over my entire display. I only want a reasonable sized thumbnail to view as I read the rest of the log. If I'm interested in seeing the image in it's full-blown glory, I'll click on it to open the image by itself.

[+Sweeney Toddlers]

I like the current implementation. When viewing a log, I do not want pictures to be huge and take over my entire display. I only want a reasonable sized thumbnail to view as I read the rest of the log. If I'm interested in seeing the image in it's full-blown glory, I'll click on it to open the image by itself.

 

Hmmm, but if there was an immediate link to click ( "see full sized image", for instance) that would be better than having to take several steps to get there........

 

Anyhoo, Flickr account just opened. Will give that a go or, if it turns out to be too much hassle, give up on posting pics.

 

Oh, and BTW, if you are browsing a gallery through a public profile why do you need another (slightly bigger) thumbnail when you already have one.....? Seems highly wasteful....

Edited March 6, 2012 by Sweeney Toddlers

[+xandrej]

This new image resizing behaviour is strange for me, too. I want to see picture (and I want other users to see my picture) as it was uploaded. I do not want to see damaged, shrinked picture with poor quality. I know, there is possibility to see it as it was uploaded, but try to do it for 20 pictures in one log. You will click your mouse button to death and waste lots of time. This is not good design at all.

If you want to have this fancy image resizing (after clicking on pic link in listing/gallery) to "unify" displaying of all pics, please consider to add user setting (simple check box "I want to see always original pictures"), which will disable it and display always original pictures.

 

Please, do not damage user creativity and will to share their pics with your "website design".

Thank you.

Edited March 7, 2012 by xandrej

[+Lil Devil]

I know, there is possibility to see it as it was uploaded, but try to do it for 20 pictures in one log. You will click your mouse button to death and waste lots of time. This is not good design at all.

You're assuming that everyone is viewing the site on a computer with a large monitor and unlimited bandwidth. The reality is that lots of people view the site on a small laptop or mobile phone, and/or are in a country where they pay for every byte they download. Why force everyone to download multi-megapixel pictures when a thumbnail will do just fine in the majority of the cases. If the picture is of interest, and the user has the bandwidth, they can click through to see the larger version.

[+xandrej]

I know, there is possibility to see it as it was uploaded, but try to do it for 20 pictures in one log. You will click your mouse button to death and waste lots of time. This is not good design at all.

You're assuming that everyone is viewing the site on a computer with a large monitor and unlimited bandwidth. The reality is that lots of people view the site on a small laptop or mobile phone, and/or are in a country where they pay for every byte they download. Why force everyone to download multi-megapixel pictures when a thumbnail will do just fine in the majority of the cases. If the picture is of interest, and the user has the bandwidth, they can click through to see the larger version.

I am not forcing anybody to download multi-megapixel pictures, I am suggesting solution - preferencies setting, so everobody can do as he likes/can, as this new behaviour is downgrade of functionality for me. Sweeney Toddlers also suggested solution with "see full sized image".

[+GrnXnham]

I like the current implementation. When viewing a log, I do not want pictures to be huge and take over my entire display. I only want a reasonable sized thumbnail to view as I read the rest of the log. If I'm interested in seeing the image in it's full-blown glory, I'll click on it to open the image by itself.

 

Hmmm, but if there was an immediate link to click ( "see full sized image", for instance) that would be better than having to take several steps to get there........

 

Anyhoo, Flickr account just opened. Will give that a go or, if it turns out to be too much hassle, give up on posting pics.

 

Oh, and BTW, if you are browsing a gallery through a public profile why do you need another (slightly bigger) thumbnail when you already have one.....? Seems highly wasteful....

 

I just now found this topic as I was frustrated because I haven't uploaded pics in a couple of months and I couldn't figure out why the uploaded pics had gotten smaller and of lower quality.

 

I agree with this person. Having a "See full sized image" option at the bottom of the thumbnail PIC would be a great improvement over the new current multi-step process to see the full sized image.

[+hzoi]

Found a new image bug today. When I upload images to a cache log, they display bigger than the actual uploaded file, so they look low quality. When I click the image, it then displays at its regular size and (high) quality.

[+The A-Team]

Found a new image bug today. When I upload images to a cache log, they display bigger than the actual uploaded file, so they look low quality. When I click the image, it then displays at its regular size and (high) quality.

Example?

I just uploaded a whole bunch of photos yesterday. When I click on a photo from the log on the cache page, it shows a reduced-size version of it. If I go to that log, the photos are shown as much smaller thumbnails. If I click on one of these thumbnails, it brings it up full-size. I can't find anywhere where they're being blown up.

[+hzoi]

I've tried to duplicate it, and apparently it only comes up on the confirmation screen immediately after uploading the image. Doesn't seem to affect the images as they regularly appear in the cache or trackable logs or in our gallery.

 

So, as long as it isn't affecting images as they are regularly displayed, it's probably not worth the time and effort to debug it.

[+The A-Team]

I've tried to duplicate it, and apparently it only comes up on the confirmation screen immediately after uploading the image. Doesn't seem to affect the images as they regularly appear in the cache or trackable logs or in our gallery.

I'll see if I can duplicate it the next time I upload an image.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I'm seeing a problem in the displaying of images on the cache page "lightbox".

 

I'm in the habit of uploading 800x600 pictures, 800 pixels wide. Images that I uploaded before the change (eg http://coord.info/GC2A7WN) pop up in full 800 pixel resolution on my browser window which is, obviously, big enough to show them that size. Images that I uploaded after the change (http://coord.info/GC179H2) now pop up smaller, even though the system does store a full-size copy.

 

Why can't it show the full 800 pixels for the newly-uploaded ones, since there's clearly room to do so, and the system actually does so for older images?

[+Viajero Perdido]

More to the point, why is the cache-log popup showing the version of the image that has "large" in the URL, eg

 

http://img.geocachin...79b9c2f900e.jpg

 

when that's only 640 pixels (smaller than I uploaded), whereas the undisplayed version without "large" in the URL is actually larger, in my case 800 pixels? 800 is what I upload, and by golly, some pictures are worth 800.

 

http://img.geocachin...79b9c2f900e.jpg

 

Doesn't it seem backwards that your "large" images aren't the large versions?

[Moun10Bike]

"Large" is a defined size of 640px that provides a consistent presentation of images in various scenarios. If you want to see your original image, just drop the "large" portion of the URL.

[+Viajero Perdido]

I can see my own images on my own computer without involving Groundspeak, at any size I choose. That's not the issue.

 

I'd love for other people to see my images at 800 pixels across, instead of the measly 640 you currently shrink them to. That's in the "lightbox" (jargon) that pops up when you click a picture title in a cache log.

 

Pictures uploaded earlier will be shown at 800, why not the newer ones?

 

BTW, I find it odd that your system has no problem showing images 800 pixels tall.

 

The logic mystifies me.

[+Viajero Perdido]

PS: Years ago we had a lightbox for cache page images, the ones uploaded by the cache owner. I miss that.

 

Just another windmill.