Why some of my images have ONLY the "1600x1200" resolution? When I uploaded them everything was fine. I don't know what happened... :\

It's a new thing to save space on the caedes server. Instead of showing all the picture sizes, archived images (some/all, i'm not sure) will only show in the largest size [most likely 1600x1200].

Saving disk space .. @ .. Non-art Website Issues

Thanx for the explanation and for the helping link. Sorry for still being dumb but what's exactly an "archived" image?

you're not dumb,nor being so. 'archived' means that the image is only able to be viewed in your personal gallery, not the new images gallery, or the 'permanent' gallery (any other category outside of new images)

That's kinda sad for me. :( I have some pictures wich I thaught they were pretty good. Almost all my pics are now archived.

having your work set aside as archived doesn't mean it isn't any good. it could be that there's already a similar piece (or pieces) in that category in the perm gallery. it could also mean that while it was good, for whatever reason it didnt stand out and yell at the mod who happened to be selecting works at that particular moment.

in any event, don't be discouraged. just keep plugging away, try different things, and sometimes 'that shot' will be the one you least expect. happy hunting :o)

I just wish they would reduce the archived pics to 1280x1024 so they can be seen by most of us. Not many LCD's out there that dislpay 1600x1200 that I know of.

doesn't windows automatically shrink the image for you? (from a desktop\wallpaper point of view)

your image viewer will do the same, no doubt .. (irfanview = press F)

That would mean every time you look at a picture you have to ask Windows to shrink it to fit. Who will do that when browsing through galleries? They will either look at the chopped off 1600x1200 or not look at all. It's ok to have Windows shrink it if you use it as a wallpaper but viewing online is the problem.

Well using Windows XP, the "Windows Picture and Fax Viewer" (which is the simple default image viewer) automatically scales down images larger than your current resolution to fit in the screen, so browsing larger resolution images is no problem. And it has a button to view the image at its full resolution, with scrollbars.

Yes, the Windows Picture and Fax Viewer certainly does that but it is nice just to be able to click on the thumbnail and see the whole image within your browser instead of a small portion. I agree a smaller resolution would be best for the majority of viewers and surely would save further disk space?

I'd think that many (at least myself) would prefer keeping their archived images at full resolution so others who stumble across one of them gets the full quality, as it was intended. Plus the annoyance may encourage you to avoid having images archived perhaps? <_<

I imagine the reason for choosing 1600 x 1200 is that anyone who wants to use it as a desktop can do so, whereas if it was a smaller res anyone who used a larger screen reolution on their computer wouldn't have that option.

Thank you very much for the encouraging words, Rob! :)

And viewing ONLINE the 1600x1200 images is a problem for me too. I use Firefox with this cool extension (Image Toolbar) that shrinks the large images, but unfortunately the extension doesn't work on Caedes. :\

Everyone here seems to rush through photos as it is, adding another step just won't cut it. Just dump the archives then people will work harder to put up better images.

Jerry... I, like many others I'm sure, did my best to upload only quality, interesting, clear photos here on Caedes. The amount of daily images is huge, I understand that... but because they are so many, lots of good shots are archived without a chance.
And to tell you the truth, I saw quite a few poor quality images in the permanent galleries too. :\

Look, the idea is that moderators should be a little more careful. So what if the "pets gallery" is already full of cats and dogs? If someone uploads a really good shot of a cat, why don't put it in the permanent gallery? :)

If anything, I believe we are still too generous when moving images to the perms. The permenant galleries should be preserved for the rare, truly exceptional images that only come along once in a while. People should feel like something really special has happened when an image of theirs is moved to the perms, rather than expecting that half their images should be promoted there...

maybe the perm gallery should have a clean out, cos there are definately images in there that are a bit ordinary..

I've deleted quite a few of mine that were in the perms...they honestly were not that gr8. I still have some in there that i'm not to fond of either (well, that makes my whole gallery). ;-)

I think it might be time for a spring cleaning too, but it takes a huge amount of work and last time alot of people got upset...

Put a cap on the size of the galleries. You have some pics you like and want to keep kick out some of your archived shots of lesser quality. Hopefully we are always improving so move out the junk. One site charges for extra space...but that can get out of hand too, especially when we don't make any money on our pics. The site mentioned is a selling site so it wouldn't go well here.

well Sam people will get upset and whine no matter what happens, even with the *whispers the C & V words.... so its natural that they will jump up and down about the spring clean of the perms, maybe it will make some people move up a level in their art and push their creative boundaries more... A spring clean is overdue.. and its not as if they are going to be deleted as they were in the good ol' days, they are archived so they can still be seen..

It's been said in the forums that some older images were in the perm gallery more on a grandfather basis than actual artistic merit. since there were far fewer posters than there are now, there wasn't as stringent a selection process as there was now. with that in mind, i think the fair thing would be to give some of those older, and perhaps lesser images a second look and archive them, as their current equivelents would have been.

I know there are images in the perms that belong to members who have been long gone from the site.. maybe they could be removed to make way for the new artists

I agree that the image that we view in our browser should be a smaller size such as 1024 x 768.

Now I may sound a little harsh here, because I wasn't always a paying member, but we all need to donate, because it does get expensive to have big hard drives, lots of memory and extra bandwidth. Cmon everyone...please donate before complaining.

The prob with that is caedes wont be able to make bigger versions after downsizing, unless he makes a small size and a big size... = more server space.

Then make it a pay to upload site. Non paying members can look and download but no uploads till you help support the site. I think that is fair and just.

I dont think that would be very fair to members... thats segregating economic society.... not everyone has money to spare to pay.. a lot of members are school kids, pensioners, etc.. who cant afford it...

Yeah I think Geri wants to keep it voluntary as much as possible. Remember we have alot of younger members who probablly don't have much access to money...

....trying to get rid of me?

Let them sell drugs!....................kidding before some gets a rope.

Come on. That's why Caedes is so popular, because is for free. I'd like to join the Caedes Cadre but I can't. I really can't afford to pay for my hobbies too. :\

As for the image resolutions issue, WHY the larger pics aren't shrinked by the browsers anyway? It's kinda annoing when you want to visualize a 1600x1200 image and you can't see but the top left corner. There is nothing to be done?...

Just remember images used to be deleted rather than archived. So just think it's better to see them at 1200 x 1600 than not see them at all :-)

I'm using Firefox 2.0.0.1 .. and it has a little magnifying glass when the image is done downloading .. click and the image fits .. click again and it don't .. uh .. doesn't

I'm using the same version of Firefox but I only get that when viewing images in the voting booth. The rest of the time, all I can see is a tiny rectangular bit of the image. I can't really look at it properly even in the right desktop size since my browser window is obviously smaller, but at 1600*1200 the image is unrecognisable. Is there something I can do to get the magnifying glass outside the voting booth? That would be fantastic.

(Mind you, I got the magnifying glass in the voting booth before Firefox 2, so maybe I'm doing something generally wrong...)

Thanks,
cfr

I would rather have the 1280x1024...let the guys (both of them) who have a 1600x1200 desktop look at the 1280x1024...at least they can see ALL the picture.

OK .. try this (using firefox).. when an image loads, if you don't get the Mag Glass, select "view image" from the right-click menu .. since it is already in your cache, the change is immediate ... and you should have the magnifying glass to zoom in and out

There are such things as scroll bars...

I've always liked previewing the image a resolution size below mine...but I understand why we are doing what we are, also.

As they say, bigger is better ;ø)

scroll bars..is that where the bards gather for a bit of wine women and song?

...

Note what Caedes said when the 1600x1200 size was started:

"We were close to running out of disk space on the server, so I made the decision to remove all small versions of images which were archived. This means that an archived image will only be available at the maximum resolution.

Soon we will have a way to generate the smaller image version on demand, so this is only a temporary measure."

We just need to have patience Caedesians. ;=)

patience AND a keyboard in front of us don't mix

Yes, we'll have patience. :)
Someone mentioned scroll bars... Funny. I am looking right now at a 1600x1200 pic from Caedes. I use Firefox. It opened in a simple new window, WHITOUT the top menu and without scroll bars. The ONLY way you can see a pic in a window with scroll bars is to right click on it and click "open in new tab". ;)

Thanks, Keifer - that works. It is an extra step but will be extremely helpful. It's even helpful for me viewing the "right" size desktop but it will be invaluable in the archives.

Weird, though. It is as though Firefox doesn't know it is an image without being told so. Actually, I assume there is some difference in html mark-up between full-screen views in the voting booth and full-screen views elsewhere.

It is interesting. I wonder how the different sizes affect results in the voting booth. Does everyone see the same size (i.e. smaller than the image size in most cases) or do people see different sizes depending on information their browsers provide? What size am I viewing in the voting booth? I'm guessing 800*60 but I'm not sure.

By the way, you can also drag the link to the tab bar rather than right/left/control clicking. At least, it works for me.

- cfr

I always sent vote-booth images to a new tab (middle click) .. I use a tabbed browser, so gosh darn it, I'm gonna use tabs .. (*I used to HATE it when IE would open a new window offset by a quarter inch .... HATE IT, HATE IT, HATE IT*)

phewww!! .. lost control there

:)) I forgot about dragging the link to the tab. But is almost the same thing. Ermm... lots of movements. I'm a lazy kitten as you can see in my avvie. :P

Long live tabs, huh, Keith... =)

(*Evil grin*)

tabs .. AND .. tabbies

You got that right! :D

Don't worry. This will be taken care of shortly.