Picture sizes shrunk from gallery

[InTheShed]

[Note: this is a computer-screen-specific issue]

When I insert a pic from the Gallery it looks like this:

20221213_084200 winter grow.jpg

• InTheShed
• Dec 13, 2022

Le Creme CBG x2 day 34, Amnesia Lemon Kush day 33

When I link that pic using Ctrl-P and put in the URL, it looks like this:

Which is the same size if I use the Attach Photo button at the bottom:

Why are gallery pics downscaled, and how can I fix that? It makes posting from the gallery less useful and more time consuming to get them full-sized.

 

[nivek]

P1160971.jpg

• nivek
• Dec 19, 2020

seems the pics are smaller than used to be,,

spidermites i might suggest

 

[SmokingWings]

Why are gallery pics downscaled, and how can I fix that?

Maybe the photo was larger than the size limit. The size limit was and still is 1280 pixels on any side but it was not followed by many and not enforced until last month from what I could tell.

I have not run into what you have with the few photos I do upload so far. Before I submit any photo here I crop and then resize to 1280 max on any side before submitting which might be why.

There was a brief discussion on this and a couple of other photo-gallery updates a month ago.

https://www.420magazine.com/community/threads/photo-gallery-updates.525113/post-5672334

 

[InTheShed]

Seems like it's only downsizing the way it's displayed, not the image. The top pic is identical to the other two, and the second pic is also from the gallery, just inserted a different way.

I'm assuming that management reads these threads and should have a reply at some point.

 

[SmokingWings]

Seems like it's only downsizing the way it's displayed, not the image.

Do you know the pixel size at the time you uploaded the photos? I have the feeling that the photos were larger than 1280 on at least one side.

Also, there is a way to get the photo from the gallery and display it in a msg without the line of info at the bottom. Your first photo has those 3 lines of text but there is a way to show the same photo with or without that info. Best of both worlds and all that sort of thing.

 

[SmokingWings]

Why are gallery pics downscaled, and how can I fix that?

The size of the photo eats up hard-drive space and increase costs and time. Another group I am on is facing similar in that the data members are asking for is starting to use up a lot of processing time so that group owner and moderators are coming up with options.

The way I see it the owner(s) want us to upload to the gallery so that the photo can be resized to reduce space demands. You probably are familiar with this info but for those who are not it is something I am sure is part of what is considered. If the photo is something the member puts in msgs on a regular basis and they upload using the Attach Photo button then each time they attach it adds another copy of the same thing to the space being taken up. If the photo is uploaded to the gallery then each time the user goes and gets it from there it is just a reference to the one photo. No addition hard-drive space being eaten up.

Anyway, each of the photos in the first msg does appear to be a different size. I still have not figured out the first one. The second one is 1280X692 so it was probably automatically reduced to fit the specs when uploaded. The third one is larger at 1600X865 and this might be your original size.

The displayed size might look the same since the computer or device it is viewed on will change it to fit the settings set-up by the user or factory.

The first one might be a large size thumbnail representing the photo which also helps to reduce server demands.

Lotta speculation here but someone might be able to explain it better.

 

[InTheShed]

Thanks Smoking, I appreciate your feedback, but I'm waiting for an explanation from @Marc Ocean or another tech support person. The file size of the first two are identical (and the same file on the server) but one has been downsized for display in the thread, which doesn't change the amount of space it takes up on the server.

And if the third one is bigger than the maximum upload size it's taking up even more room in the server.

 

[InTheShed]

The size of the photo eats up hard-drive space and increase costs and time.

Maybe this will help. Since the first two pics are exactly the same from the server, let's look at the properties as they are displayed on the page.

Here is the first, inserted from the gallery:

And here is the second (and larger display version) inserted in via Ctrl-P:

You can see that the URL and original dimensions are identical for both, but on the first is downsized to 558x302. That downsizing is what I'm asking about. The second one is downsized to fit the full width of the posting box.

Every image inserted from the gallery in every journal has been downsized to 558x___ regardless of when it was uploaded, so it's site-wide and retroactive.

 

[SmokingWings]

I am also hoping that one of the tech support can get back to you. Always trying understand how the photo features work plus trying to find a faster or easier way to upload and access the few photos I do put on the site.

This morning it looks like all three in your original msg are the same size with the first one containing the gallery notes at the bottom.

There was at least one other thread discussing photos and uploading to the gallery versus uploading directly into the msg by using the "Attach Photo" button or your "Control-P" shortcut. If I am remembering right all photos to the gallery would be resized by the software so it was no larger than 1280 on a side. But, to reduce the confusion for some members the site owners and staff were going to allow direct uploading to the msg itself. The other thread I am thinking of is:
https://www.420magazine.com/community/threads/do-you-like-using-attachments-for-the-off-topic-forums.525651/post-5678568

Using FireFox for my web browser I right clicked on the 2nd and 3rd photo and opened each in a separate tab and then looked at the "Page Info" and did a print screen, a bit of cropping and kept just the info.

This one below is your second photo which is from the gallery. It has been resized and is now the size on the 420magazine server as shown, 1280X692. And, I figure that the "Scaled (87%) means it was reduced to fit my monitor settings.

I did the same for the 3rd photo which was uploaded directly to the msg if I am understanding what you said. Figure that the size shown of 1600X865 is the size of the original and the size stored on the server.

Since I crop and resize before uploading I like using the gallery if for no other reason than I can store some notes under the photo.

As for one time use photos, I can still upload with the "Attach Photo" button since they are already cropped and resized.

 

[InTheShed]

This morning it looks like all three in your original msg are the same size with the first one containing the gallery notes at the bottom.

They seemed to have tweaked the resizing parameters, so it looks like the squeaky wheel gets the grease even if no one replied about it here.

Problem solved!

 

[Teddy Edwards]

Hi everyone. Sorry we didn't get right back to you here. Our magnificent Webmaster, Marc, has been extremely busy on numerous projects. This was one of them.

Why are gallery pics downscaled, and how can I fix that? It makes posting from the gallery less useful and more time consuming to get them full-sized.

We do encourage members to post via the gallery - it's keeps a record for you of course, and also massively supports our SEO. This problem was making it more difficult.

As you've seen, the oil has most definitely been applied and wheel should no longer squeak.

 

[InTheShed]

Hi everyone. Sorry we didn't get right back to you here. Our magnificent Webmaster, Marc, has been extremely busy on numerous projects. This was one of them.

We do encourage members to post via the gallery - it's keeps a record for you of course, and also massively supports our SEO. This problem was making it more difficult.

As you've seen, the oil has most definitely been applied and wheel should no longer squeak.

Teddy (and @Marc Ocean), and it's always nice to see your smiling face!