 | | | | | |
Hello!
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
Think about it.
Kudos to Holger!
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
> Think about it.
>
>
> Kudos to Holger!
>
> Jojo
Thanks JoJo and of course HoMa,
That sums up my feelings about BS lately in an amusing way. Love the second
image to make the point.
I'd love to see a filesize limit imposed for images. Or at the least to ban BMP
files.
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
> Think about it.
I totally agree! .BMP should be banned everywhere.
About large pictures (not large in file size), it's might be ok in some cases
when you want to show something extra but not on ALL the pictures!
There's actually free software out there that resizes photos automatically
nowadays! *hint* ;)
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Harri Manni wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> > Hello!
>
> > http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
> > Think about it.
>
> I totally agree! .BMP should be banned everywhere.
> About large pictures (not large in file size), it's might be ok in some cases
> when you want to show something extra but not on ALL the pictures!
>
> There's actually free software out there that resizes photos automatically
> nowadays! *hint* ;)
It could even be done at the Brickshelf end (and already is for the thumbnails).
Tim
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hello!
> > There's actually free software out there that resizes photos automatically
> > nowadays! *hint* ;)
> It could even be done at the Brickshelf end (and already is for the thumbnails).
I'm sure quite a lot of people who send up uberbig pictures got the impression
BrickShelf DOES resize them. At least it seems to do, in that it compresses the
dimensions of the 2000×1000px pix so that they fit into the 800×600px screen.
But in fact BrickShelf does not (does not) resize the actual image/file. The
whole 500 kilobyte heavy file has to be loaded, and the whole big picture is
shown in any forum post or website page where it's linked to. So please, resize
your pictures yourself!
Also, while I am at it: It is not the case (not the case) that a blurry picture
gets clearer the bigger the picture is. Quite the contrary.
Test it: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1558609 (Attenzione,
big picture!)
Also, while I'm still at it: Please, please! have a look at your pictures first
before you upload them to your BrickShelf folder. Just sort out all pics that
are blurred, too dark, not focussed on the actual subject, show more of your rag
or wall than of your MOC. That's the big advantage of digital photography: You
can see the pictures at once and you can take new pictures immediately.
Also (Yes, I'm still at it), it's definitelly not necessary to upload ten
pictures of which eight show the same thing from always the same perspective. It
will do to select just the best pic and upload that.
Oh, and don't upload pictures done with your phone cam. They are almost always
blurry, badly lighted, too big or too small and don't show the colours
correctly. And *cough* most phone cam pictures are just pointless...
(I once wrote an article in the 1000steine-forum on that matter.
http://www.1000steine.com/forum2/forum_entry.php?id=5169
Unfortunately such appeals are futile, for those who care about the matter do it
right anyway, and those who don't care, well, just don't care.
*Jojo shrugs his shoulders and resigns*)
Bye
Jojo
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
> Think about it.
>
>
> Kudos to Holger!
>
> Jojo
Yes! More of this sort of thing!
I would just love to be able to view with the option to exclude a category.
Then I could search for 'not-bionicle'. I'd have the triple-whammy of
elimintating all that un-lego (sorry, ;-), all the s'kiddies, and all the
keyword spammers in one go. Oh to dream...
(Pete, you don't tick 'Bionicle' on your lovely robos, do you?)
Jason R
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
I noticed when you add the demensions of the file size to the file name, the
image doesn’t get resized in the Brickshelf page image placeholder browser
window.
As if the image was meant to be seen in a large format. Ie.. Desktop or Wall
paper sized images or specific large super detail images named with the actual
demensions.
When I upload a large image, I specifically name the file with the demensions,
so before clicking on it, you know it is a big picture that I intended to show
details and whatnot at a large resolution.
Images with regular file names get resized if they are larger than 800x600.
My concern is people adding big pictures will consume Brickshelf’s storage
capacity. Also, it seems people are uploading directly from their cameras as
they are connected to their computers.
I make a point to name large images with the size demensions. I also make it a
point to only upload 800x600 images of regular pictures of my MOCs.
Of course I have been using Brickshelf for more than 5 years, so some of my
older images didn’t follow this schema.
Anyway, I love Brickshelf and browsing large images that are regular MOC
pictures is a bit annoying. Once in a while I am glad the pictures are large so
I can see some bits I was interested in. However, if large images were named as
such, and regular images were resized by the user to be a standard 800x600 or
less, that would be a good thing.
Thanks Kevin for the resizing feature.
If you want to show a large image, name the file size the demensions of the
picture and keep the rest of your images at a reasonable size.(800x600 or less)
my 2 cents.
Eric Sophie
Brickshelf User #1850
User ID - Legomaster
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
> Think about it.
>
>
> Kudos to Holger!
>
> Jojo
Hi All-
Does anyone know how to delete a single image from a brickshelf folder? Is this
possible to do without removing and replacing the entire folder? Sorry if this
is stupid/already answered long ago.
Thanks-
Cyndi
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Cynthia Bradham wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
| |
Hello!
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
Think about it.
Kudos to Holger!
Jojo
|
Hi All-
Does anyone know how to delete a single image from a brickshelf folder? Is
this possible to do without removing and replacing the entire folder? Sorry if
this is stupid/already answered long ago.
Thanks-
Cyndi
|
Cyndi -
While you are logged in, get to the folder where the image is. Click on the word
‘Delete’ in the top right-hand side of the screen. You’ll see some red bars pop
up around your gallery, and then just click on the image you want to delete.
If you want to replace the image without breaking any links, just delete it and
upload a new one with the same filename.
Marc Nelson Jr.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Thanks Mark! -C.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
> Think about it.
I personally use IrfanView since it's free:
http://www.irfanview.com/
Hint: If you go to the FAQ page on the IrfanView site, and scroll down to the
very bottom, you'll find several tutorials on batch resizing and batch
conversion.
I used IrfanView to batch resize the pics on my web page:
http://home.cinci.rr.com/jnfspage/
I should update the above page. I now have three working 200 CD changers and a
50 CD changer I've gutted to use as a Media PC case. :-)
Jeff
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Johannes Koehler wrote:
> Hello!
>
>
> http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203262
> Think about it.
>
>
> Kudos to Holger!
>
> Jojo
Okay, I have read the followups to this post, and I have read a recent followup
to another post of mine over at Lugnet Announce Creation/MOC's where ALE Linus
Bohman kindly gave me some tips on photography for my MOC's. I am not camera
savvy, nor am I transferring-to-computer-format savvy, but what he pointed out
helped. So too has been a few links from this discussion.
And yet I am still plagued with poor visual representation at times. I
discovered from Bohman's post that a couple of programs I was using had "too
harsh" of compression for my files. Indeed, that is exactly what happened there.
So, I used some other programs, and that worked for some more recent MOC's.
Here is my point: I got the drift of the three pics with this post, but could
some of you more experienced ALE's point out some examples of these bad images
on Brickshelf so that I can understand the magnitude and spectrum of where
things go bad. It is a problem that is constantly up my craw and I mean to study
it from every which way in order to hopefully solve it with the available
resources that I have. (Once I understand how to fully apply those resources.)
I am beginning to see the details of what the followups here had to say, but I
would like further referrence.
Thank you kindly,
Looking for a solution Avery.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
--snip--
> Looking for a solution Avery.
Exhibit A http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2007495
Exhibit B http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1971512
It's really not that hard [1] to keep people unannoyed but good photography
requires practise and, most importantly, chucking away crap pictures. I usually
shoot about 3 or 4 times as many as I use and I know for some people it's more
like 10.
Tim
[1] Some rules to stop annoying people:
Image size smaller than 1024x1024
NEVER EVER use BMP format. If you use that I won't look at your picture except
to mock it.
File size should ultimately be less than 512kb
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hello!
I’m happy that this issue seems to be an issue which is starting to be discussed
here and elsewhere at 1000steine.
There have been some valueable informations in this thread concerning online
pictures of MOCs. To show your great MOCs online you need to go along a chain of
several steps. I will explain the way I normally go:
Input - Taking pictures
First of all you need to take pictures of your MOC. Here are some basic “rules”
I follow:
-- get in touch with your camera, read the instructions, get some experience
while going for a sunday walk, an evening dinner with the family, etc.
-- use a digital camera instead of a phone cam
-- use the highest resolution your camera can handle
-- think about what is in front of the lens, no LEGO fan is interested in your
furniture, wallpaper, bookshelf, computer desk, ashtray, etc.
-- use a neutral background
-- use daylight, somewhere outside is a good choice, direct sunlight is a
challenge to deal with
-- do NOT use flash lights, reflection on LEGO bricks is bad
-- plan your session, take allover view pics and pics showing details
-- use a tripod if your hand is shaky
-- use the macro function of you camera
-- take some time and take as many pics as could be stored on you flash card or
microdrive
Putput - Editing Pictures
The editing phase at least takes the same time as the photography session!
-- Do NEVER upload you picturues directly form the camera to the internet!
-- Download all files form the camera memory to your harddisk, name the folder
eg. “LEGO raw material”. This folder will contain a 1:1 copy of each shot
you’ve taken. This is important cause you never know if you destroy a pic
while editing it. So have a copy!
-- Create supfolders “large” and “small”. The large-folder will contain all pics
in the original format, you could use this for printouts, wallpapers,
pictures on T-Shirt, etc. You will work in this folder for the most of the
time. The small-folder will later contain the copies of your pics which will
go online.
-- Get familiar with any kind of picture editing software. Could be complex
Photoshop or onboard software like Microsoft Picture Manager which comes with
MS Office or Irfanview, ACDSee, etc. The software could offer some basic
editing tools like resize, cut outs, batch processes, turning 90°
clockwise/anticlockwise, renaming of files, etc.
-- Go to your large-folder an start your work:
---- Get the orientation right - noone will flip his head 90° right or left all
the time while surfing on Brickshelf. -> Save the files!
---- Sort out the crap and keep the best. Delete the crap (you will have a copy
in your raw-folder). It’s useless to have 10 or more moreless identical
shots at an online gallery. Where is the difference? One shot per viewangle
is enough! Delete blurry, dark, bad pics!
---- Rename your pics. Cameras use an internal code to name the files. I allways
use a “counter” in the beginning like 001-; 002-; 003- ... Use
“speaking” names, these days there is no 8-digit limitation for filenames
any more. Avoid blanks and spaces in the filename, use underscore if spaces
are needed.
---- Cut-out: If you haven’t been aware of the object and the background while
taking pictures, the software offers tools to cut your pictures. Get rid of
useless backgrounds, we wanna see your LEGO creation!
... all this happens in you large-folder. After doing all this, copy all files
form the large-folder in the small-folder.
-- Go to you small-folder and keep on going with your work.
The copies in this small folder will go online. So the aim is to reduce the size
of the picture and the size of the file. Attention: There is a big difference
between the filesize and the picturesize!
My 7 megapixel camera makes pictures in the Large mode which are 3072 x 2304
pixel and have a filesize approx. 3 MB. Even with a screen resolution of 1400 x
1050 pixel I can’t see the full picture on my screen when it is shown with a
zoomfactor of 100% in any software. This size is great for huge printouts, but
we want to get good pics for the internet.
There might be philosophical discussions about the right size of a picture on
the internet. Noone seems to surf with a screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels
anymore. I recommend a picturessize of 800 x 600 pixels for pictures which I
show online. For specail cases I use higher sizes, but I name them to warn a
user that this files might not be display correct on a normal screen resolution
(eg. wallpagpers: http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=113126)
If you have split you pictures in “overall” and “details” it will work for both
if you use a 800 x 600 size for online pics.
Next step is the file size. The file size isn’t necessary changed if you change
the size of the picture. I could reduce my raw-pics form 3072 x 2304 without
losing bytes. That is not senseful for online pics. For most LEGO online pics
*.jpg is recommended and works well. You need to play with the compression of
*.jpg. At least you should use compression for online pics. There is no benefit
if you do not compress the file size. The quality of non compressed online
pictures isn’t better. That is not the fault of the picture, it is the fault of
the physical hardware of everyones screen. A screen is not a photograph!
Again we could discuss endless what a senseful filesize would be. Try to keep it
around 100 kB, 180 kB or 65 kB could be fine also, depending on the picture.
If all this is done, check your pictures again. Will someone be happy if he/she
surfs this gallery? Ok, then make a *.zip file and upload it to Brickshelf.com,
flickr.com (or to any other server).
Make sure you use speaking descriptions of folders at Brickshelf. And try to
avoid keyword spamming. If you show a train moc then there is no need for a
“space” keyword. Otherwise keywords are useless some day. (with unnamed pictures
it will become impossible to find a picture again with the search engines).
Results - Presenting Pictures
Let’s have a final look what happens when you pictures are online? Pictures
could be either shown directly a the browser. The URL address is something like:
www.server.com/my-pic/001-space-moc.jpg
There is a picture filename ending at the end of the address like jpg, png, gif
(PLEASE do not use bmp!). Modern browser versions have a automatic resize
function. This is bad, because it does not make the user aware that the pic is
probably to big for the internet. Click on the image to see the real size.
Firefox offers a lens to zoom in.
Here is an example of a plain view. Attention, use a modern 28’’ screen to see
the whole picture:
Plain view on the picture:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Rollingbricks/Homepage/Gauge1/FreightWagonG10/g10_1.jpg
This is the address if you want to show a pictrues within a thread or at your
own website. Use the “img src=””" tag or the special formating code at lugnet to
include a reference to the pic.
The resize mechanism doesn’t work anymore. The picture in the thread is shown in
its original size. The example above shows a much to big picture. People get
angry about the size of the picture rather enjoying a great LEGO MOC.
There is a last thing you should consider. Even if you upload a 3200 x 2300
pixel pic online it could be displayed smaller when it is reference at a
website. The “img src” tag could be added with some width and height
information. This gives the browser the task to use the huge picture but to
display it smaller. ATTENTION: The filesize isn’t changed at all, a 3 MB pic is
just pressed into a smaller display “window”. The pic becomes “viewable” but the
traffic for download stayes the same.
This method is used by Brickshelf automatically. You see this at the bottom line
saying “Image resized from 2272x1704”. Again, it’s only the mode of display
which is resized, not the size of the picture nor the filesize of the picture.
Gallery at Brickshelf with resized display of a picture:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=1996318
Remember, the full size is this:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Rollingbricks/Homepage/Gauge1/FreightWagonG10/g10_1.jpg
(Swich off the automatic resize funciton of your browser!)
Brickshelf Thumbnails
Another method is used by Brickshelf to create the thumbnail pictures in the
overview gallery.
Overwiew with thumbnails:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203210
While uploading your pictures an batch process copies the pictures and makes a
new size and a new filename for the thumbnail pictures.
Thumbnail:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Rollingbricks/Homepage/Gauge1/FreightWagonG10/thumb/g10_1.jpg_thumb.jpg
And again the real picture:
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Rollingbricks/Homepage/Gauge1/FreightWagonG10/g10_1.jpg
Take a look at the difference in the address of both pictures. The thumbnail is
not displayed in a compressed way, it is automatically edited and resized!
I hope that all makes it a bit more clearer and improves the quality of LEGO
pictures online.
Excuse my english, it is not my mother’s tounge.
Sorry Dirk for using your gallery for demonstration!
And have fun with small and big pictures at my own Brickshelf gallery:
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?m=matthes
Holger
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hello,
while surfing Brickshelf recent galleries another “highlight” could be found:
An broken, 3504x2336 picture!
http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?i=2006136
No, your computer isn’t broken, the picture someone uploaded was allready broken
before uploading or brickshelf broke it ...
The Thumbnail shows the broken pic as well:
Please, LEGO fans, use your brain before uploading stuff online!
Holger
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Holger Matthes wrote:
| |
while surfing Brickshelf recent galleries another “highlight” could be found:
An broken, 3504x2336 picture!
No, your computer isn’t broken, the picture someone uploaded was allready
broken before uploading or brickshelf broke it ...
The Thumbnail shows the broken pic as well:
Please, LEGO fans, use your brain before uploading stuff online!
|
Hi Holger,
Your request may not be heard. Most of the people uploading such junk, whether
it’s out of focus, poorly lit, too low or too high resolution pictures are
mostly kids who don’t read Lugnet...it might be better if you posted this on BZ
Power or wherever they congregate.
I really liked your overview on how to present good Lego pictures. It doesn’t
take any high priced equipment to do a good job when you take some care and take
your pictures outside, on a tripod, and rescale them, just as you say.
But the problem is, you’re telling the people (Lugnet, 1000steine) who probably
aren’t the people causing your grief. Those people don’t read Lugnet.general,
and they probably don’t care anyways.
Also note that poor Kevin is still moderating all the folders himself. It’s
really tough for him manually check every photo, so short of illegal content, he
can’t be that critical (or may not want to be).
Calum
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
Hi Holger,
Your request may not be heard. Most of the people uploading such junk,
whether it’s out of focus, poorly lit, too low or too high resolution
pictures are mostly kids who don’t read Lugnet...it might be better if you
posted this on BZ Power or wherever they congregate.
|
Hi Calum,
yes, I know. Most of the users which really should read this are not acitve on
lugnet or 1000steine.
But I do not have the time to go to all other forums to do my missionary work.
Jojo did a good job while linking my gallery here at lugnet and I am surprised
how many feedback and discussion has started.
So hopefully people reading lugnet and other forums might transport this
discussion through the whole online LEGO world?
| |
I really liked your overview on how to present good Lego pictures. It
doesn’t take any high priced equipment to do a good job when you take some
care and take your pictures outside, on a tripod, and rescale them, just as
you say.
|
Thanks, I am no photographer but I love to share my experiences.
| |
But the problem is, you’re telling the people (Lugnet, 1000steine) who
probably aren’t the people causing your grief. Those people don’t read
Lugnet.general, and they probably don’t care anyways.
|
Some of them are active at lugnet or 1000steine. My example was caused not by a
Bionicle kid with it’s phone cam.
| |
Also note that poor Kevin is still moderating all the folders himself. It’s
really tough for him manually check every photo, so short of illegal content,
he can’t be that critical (or may not want to be).
|
Yes I know. But there are some ideas to make the whole issues smoother:
- The brickshelf server uses a kind of resizing batch for the thumbnails. So why couldn’t the filezise and pics ize not be reduced automatically while uploading new pics? Limitations would keep the server space and traffic lower.
- Or a routine testing the size of the pics with a simple result: The picture can not be uploaded due to the file size. (Ok that won’t stop blurry, dark pics)
- Could there be a voting for other brickshelf-user? If a gallery gets 50 or whatever negative results it will be deleted. So if someone finds a majority of blurry, bad pics so just kick out the gallery.
- Kevin could update the upload site with some more warnings, e.g. my protest pic or a link to some basics about editing pictures before uploading them.
Holger
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Holger "HoMa" Matthes wrote:
> - Could there be a voting for other brickshelf-user? If a gallery
> gets 50 or whatever negative results it will be deleted. So if
> someone finds a majority of blurry, bad pics so just kick out the
> gallery.
This would be a horrible idea. It would be so abuseable to delete pictures
from people that for some reason are disliked, or content that someone
objects to. Can you imagine how quickly Brendan Powell Smith's Bible
pictures would be voted off...
On the subject of overly large pictures - I would love to see pictures over
some size re-sampled to say 800x600, though the original should also be
available (sometimes it's nice to be able to zoom in). But if the default
was to display maximum 1024x768 or some such, with larger pictures
re-sampled down, that would be way cool...
As to uploading blurry pictures and such - I have to admit, I used to spend
time going through all my pictures, re-sizing them to 800x600 or smaller or
so (sometimes by scaling, some times by cropping). These days, I just don't
have the time, so they get uploaded as is (though at least I get them all
rotated right - primarily because the MS Windows picture browser
automatically saves rotated pictures if you rotate while browsing, so it's
just a matter of a minute or two. Sometimes I will also kill a horrible
picture, however, I generally prefer to keep all the pictures taken, and
since I'm not making a new set of pictures before uploading, there's a catch
(I suppose I could avoid including bad pictures in the zip before
uploading).
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Frank Filz wrote:
> This would be a horrible idea. It would be so abuseable to delete pictures
> from people that for some reason are disliked, or content that someone
> objects to. Can you imagine how quickly Brendan Powell Smith's Bible
> pictures would be voted off...
I agree. But there could be a voting without consequences, like at mocpages. One
category could be "artwork and presentation". So blurry pics could cause a
"negative" vote.
> On the subject of overly large pictures - I would love to see pictures over
> some size re-sampled to say 800x600, though the original should also be
> available (sometimes it's nice to be able to zoom in). But if the default
> was to display maximum 1024x768 or some such, with larger pictures
> re-sampled down, that would be way cool...
If the photographer takes both overview and detailed pics there is no need to
zoom in. A automatic resize functionality down to 800x600 would be perfect.
> ... These days, I just don't
> have the time, so they get uploaded as is ...
I do not understand this way of thinking. If you do not have the time to sort
out your pics or run them through a resize-batch process before uploading, I
will not have time to surf and enjoy such a gallery. If the creator spends so
little interest in presenting his/her stuff, why should the spectator spend even
more time looking at the pics?
Holger
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Holger Matthes wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Frank Filz wrote:
[...]
> I do not understand this way of thinking. If you do not have the time to sort
> out your pics or run them through a resize-batch process before uploading, I
> will not have time to surf and enjoy such a gallery. If the creator spends so
> little interest in presenting his/her stuff, why should the spectator spend even
> more time looking at the pics?
Hi Holger,
Don't forget that some users use BS as a storing facility for their own needs or
just to exchange stuffs with friends...and not for the pleasure of the
"spectator" you are.
But this thread is a great one and I agree most of the points even though I
don't care too much (the thumbs prevent me from clicking Bionicles things).
(I care with regard to save server HD capacity and cost for the hoster)
Didier
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Didier Enjary wrote:
> In lugnet.general, Holger Matthes wrote:
> > I do not understand this way of thinking. If you do not have the
> > time to sort out your pics or run them through a resize-batch
> > process before uploading, I will not have time to surf and enjoy
> > such a gallery. If the creator spends so little interest in
> > presenting his/her stuff, why should the spectator spend even more
> > time looking at the pics?
>
> Don't forget that some users use BS as a storing facility for their
> own needs or just to exchange stuffs with friends...and not for the
> pleasure of the "spectator" you are.
Yep. That's part of it. I'm pushing those pictures out in part to have an
additional backup (I'm horrible at writing CDs for backup, but if I have a
copy of my pictures on BrickShelf, on my work laptop, and on my home
computer, I've got a lot of safety [though things are compromised a bit if I
take the laptop home]).
But there's also somewhat of a difference between someone like me, who does
make an effort to take good pictures, and folks who upload a whole gallery
of out of focus pictures, or one's that are not well lit, or ones that could
be reduced to a reasonable size simply by cropping.
As to zooming in on large pictures - that assumes the photographer knows the
details I want to see. Also, by zooming in from a larger picture, you get
more context of the detail. I think there's room for both (which is why what
I'd love to see is auto-resizing of large pictures to a reasonable size,
with the high-res picture still available for those who desire to see it).
We also need to distinguish between casual photography and serious
photography. For casual photographers, I would concentrate on a few issues:
- lighting (and proper lighting would solve most of the blurriness issues)
- framing (so you don't need to crop as much)
- use of macro mode if available (my camera doesn't have a good macro
capability*)
- a few quick techniques before uploading (rotate your pictures so up is up,
prune out the pictures that are hopeless, crop a few).
* eventually I'll buy a new one, though then I'll be presented with the
re-sizing issue. My 1.3 mega-pixel camera produces reasonable size images
for today's internet (most people have high speed connections and large
screens - though still, I think 800x600 is the most that is normally needed
for internet use, very few folks have more than a 1280x1024 display, looking
at an 800x600 picture in a browser will almost fill a 1024x768 screen, and
leaves room for a few other windows to be visible on 1280x1024).
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Calum Tsang wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Holger Matthes wrote:
| |
Please, LEGO fans, use your brain before uploading stuff online!
|
Your request may not be heard. Most of the people uploading such junk,
whether it’s out of focus, poorly lit, too low or too high resolution
pictures are mostly kids who don’t read Lugnet...it might be better if you
posted this on BZ Power or wherever they congregate.
|
I notice a number of sample “bad” images are Bionicle-related, not surprising
given the number of BZPower members using Brickshelf. This is an ongoing
education issue for BZP, and one that we are constantly trying to educate the
younger Brickshelf users about. There are several photography and posting
tutorials at BZP, but they’re not always used. There’s a fair amount of churn at
BZP, so education will always be an ongoing process.
This will likely continue to be an issue for AFOLs looking for more polished
Brickshelf content. I don’t see the number of poorly-lit, fuzzy, oversized BMPs
decreasing anytime soon.
Having said that, would anyone (perhaps Holger) be interested in creating a
tutorial for publication on LEGOFan? There are some great tips in this thread.
Kelly
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
Having said that, would anyone (perhaps Holger) be interested in creating a
tutorial for publication on LEGOFan? There are some great tips in this
thread.
|
Hi Kelly,
I do not say that there are only BZPower “kids” uploading problematic pics at
brickshelf. I know a huge number of AFOL galleries (ok, the content seems to be
build by an AFOL) which could be improved.
I am not that familiar with legofan.org but I managed to post this:
http://www.legofan.org/DotNetNuke/Discussion/LFForums/tabid/142/forumid/3/postid/266/view/topic/Default.aspx
I also converted my former posting form lugnet with tips and tricks into a PDF.
I needed I could expand this with some more examples. But feel free to use this
PDF tutorial to discuss as BZPower.
http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/matthes/000protest/improve_your_online_pictures.pdf
But afterall: We should not forget the fun we all have with the Danish plastic
product :-
Holger
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Holger Matthes wrote:
| |
I do not say that there are only BZPower “kids” uploading problematic pics at
brickshelf. I know a huge number of AFOL galleries (ok, the content seems to
be build by an AFOL) which could be improved.
|
No, that was my fault. I implied that. Sorry Holger.
Calum
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
Having said that, would anyone (perhaps Holger) be interested in creating a
tutorial for publication on LEGOFan? There are some great tips in this
thread.
Kelly
|
I would’ve thought the most logical place to put an article about how best to
upload pictures to Brickshelf, would be on the front page of Brickshelf itself.
May I suggest to Holger that he emails a cut down version of the post at the top
of this branch to Kevin. If most of the work is done for him, I’m sure he’d be
happy to add it. Failing that, as historically, Kevin hasn’t been very keen to
answer emails, you could try posting it to the zerostuds forum. Kevin’s sure to
see it there
Allister
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Allister McLaren wrote:
| |
In lugnet.general, Kelly McKiernan wrote:
| |
Having said that, would anyone (perhaps Holger) be interested in creating a
tutorial for publication on LEGOFan? There are some great tips in this
thread.
Kelly
|
I would’ve thought the most logical place to put an article about how best to
upload pictures to Brickshelf, would be on the front page of Brickshelf
itself.
|
Agreed. However, I would think if it would ever be there, it would have already
been put up. In my conversations with Kevin from a couple of BrickFests ago, he
indicated a desire to keep text to a minimum and allow the content to be the
main focus. I gather that’s for internationalization. And I would also think
that putting any large amount of “how to take and post decent pictures” might
also scare some people off; they might get the impression that good photography
or image manipulation/resizing on their part is mandatory.
Kelly
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Calum Tsang wrote:
| |
Your request may not be heard. Most of the people uploading such junk,
whether it’s out of focus, poorly lit, too low or too high resolution
pictures are mostly kids who don’t read Lugnet...it might be better if you
posted this on BZ Power or wherever they congregate.
|
I have now idea if it’s practicly feasable, but maybe have a text file
automaticly uploaded in every new brickshelf acount, containing basic
reccomondations plus a link to more extensive information, would be another
chanel to educate at least a substantial part of the new users.
With friendly greetings, M. Moolhuysen.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
If brickshelf were to completely ban BMP files, that would be a good start...
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
In lugnet.general, Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> If brickshelf were to completely ban BMP files, that would be a good start...
Or auto-convert them to JPG when they are uploaded. But that takes lotsa CPU
cycles.
Steve
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jonathan Wilson wrote:
> If brickshelf were to completely ban BMP files, that would be a good
> start...
NO!
Imagine people putting up sticker scans, which you'd want as sharp as
possible for reprinting. Using JPEG and having them scaled would kill the
details there.
Why not educate the clueless user instead of killing features power users
might want or need?
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Jan-Albert van Ree wrote:
> Jonathan Wilson wrote:
>
> > If brickshelf were to completely ban BMP files, that would be a good
> > start...
>
> NO!
>
> Imagine people putting up sticker scans, which you'd want as sharp as
> possible for reprinting. Using JPEG and having them scaled would kill the
> details there.
I never said anything about scaling the image.
For things like sticker scans or anything else where you don't want lossy
compression, there are image formats like PNG. PNG can be used just fine
for anything where you don't want to loose quality.
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Holger "HoMa" Matthes wrote:
Lots of great advice snipped...
Though one comment - not everyone has the time or inclination to do all of
this. Though certainly are a few thoughts that don't really take all that
long to do.
> Another method is used by Brickshelf to create the thumbnail pictures
> in the overview gallery.
>
> Overwiew with thumbnails:
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/cgi-bin/gallery.cgi?f=203210>
>
> While uploading your pictures an batch process copies the pictures
> and makes a new size and a new filename for the thumbnail pictures.
>
> Thumbnail:
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Rollingbricks/Homepage/Gauge1/FreightWagonG10/thumb/g10_1.jpg_thumb.jpg>
> <<http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Rollingbricks/Homepage/Gauge1/FreightWagonG10/thumb/g10_1.jpg_thumb.jpg>>
>
> And again the real picture:
> <http://www.brickshelf.com/gallery/Rollingbricks/Homepage/Gauge1/FreightWagonG10/g10_1.jpg>
>
> Take a look at the difference in the address of both pictures. The
> thumbnail is not displayed in a compressed way, it is automatically
> edited and resized!
This is one of the features I like the best about BrickShelf. Not only does
it auto-thumbnail for you, but it makes those thumbnails easily accessible.
See this page:
http://www.mindspring.com/~ffilz/Lego/castle-creations.html
for an example of how I make use of the BrickShelf thumbnails, and note how
each picture is a link to the BrickShelf page (not a deep link, so people
will realize they can browse the gallery as they choose).
Of course that page was done when I had more time...
Frank
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
In lugnet.general, Frank Filz wrote:
> Holger "HoMa" Matthes wrote:
>
> Lots of great advice snipped...
>
> Though one comment - not everyone has the time or inclination to do all of
> this. Though certainly are a few thoughts that don't really take all that
> long to do.
WRT to time, I think if you're prepared to spend hours building a great MOC,
it's not all that much more time to prepare nice pics. Of course that falls down
when it's not a great MOC or it only took a few minutes to build. Inclination is
another subject altogether, but all I can say is I'm not inclined to look at
blurry, badly lit and composed pics that take several minutes to download.
Note, I am not a great photographer, I have a very basic 2 megapixel camera and
no special lighting, but I do try to spend a little time composing and preparing
photos before I upload them.
A couple of other comments about HoMa's suggestions:
1. Flash: I try to take my photos outside on an overcast day if possible, but
even when I do, I often use the flash as well, it seems to add just a little
more brightness to the bricks.
2. Macro: Even though my camera does have macro, I often choose to move further
away and use the zoom feature instead, as this reduces the distortion due to
perspective. It all depends how I want the photo to look.
ROSCO
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Although most of your advice is sound I'd like to make one comment :
You make quite a few save steps before the end result... specially with a
format such as JPEG (which is what comes out of most consumer level
camera's) loads of info gets lost on saving, it is after all a "lossy"
format, hence the nice filesize reduction vs raw files.
If you'd save and use that file again for further processing, you'll loose
loads of details.
My suggestion would be to start by converting all your images straight after
you got them out of the camera to BMP or TIFF files, which have no loss (or
use your photo package's own format, to even keep all your work steps saved
you you can even undo stuff after having saved it) and don't go back to
JPEG until your fully done editing/resizing/rotating.
Other than that, excellent advice!
--
Jan-Albert van Ree | http://www.vanree.net/brickpiles/
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Hello,
I've recently started posting pix on Brickshelf myself, and I'm not sure I
understand what exactly constitutes "annoying" pix.
I posted a bunch of pix that were 1600 x1200 pixels, and they are listed as
"Image resized from 1600x1200" When I view properties, it looks like they have
been resizedized at 800 x 600.pixels. Now is this cool, or is it a pain to view
for someone without high speed internet connection? They appear at once on my
machine but I have DSL. If they automatically get resized I'm not sure I
understand the problem.
I don't want to be a pain, but if there are people posting "annoying" pix on
BrickShelf, it is probably because they(we) aren't very familiar with how to
post pix (or in my case, don't know much PC-related stuff in general) - and they
are unlikely to understand some of the lingo thrown around on this thread. What
is a BMP.?
thanks
Magnus
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
| |
|
Hi Magnus,
> I've recently started posting pix on Brickshelf myself, and I'm not sure I
> understand what exactly constitutes "annoying" pix.
>
> I posted a bunch of pix that were 1600 x1200 pixels, and they are listed as
> "Image resized from 1600x1200" When I view properties, it looks like they have
> been resizedized at 800 x 600.pixels. Now is this cool, or is it a pain to view
> for someone without high speed internet connection? They appear at once on my
> machine but I have DSL. If they automatically get resized I'm not sure I
> understand the problem.
I tried to write some basics about online pictures here:
<http://news.lugnet.com/general/?n=52969>
If you only use Brickshelf for presentation the display-resize function might be
fine. But most of use use Brickshelf also as "storage" room for LEGO pics which
are linked in several forums. And then the full size of a pic is shown, except
the user knows the html code for resizing a pic with the img src tag.
Again, the resize in html does NOT resize the file size of the pic nor the pic
itself. The traffic is the same and this a problem for a non DSL user. And there
is no reason for a high file sized pic with lots of MB which will be displayed
only 50% or less of its size. It's easier to resize it before uploading it and
then you have all you need:
- slime file size
- right size of pic
- no need to resize the pic
> What
> is a BMP.?
BMP is Bitmap Format. A Microsoft pixel-based format [without any compression].
It could be displayed by browsers but it is not an internet format for pics at
all. BMP is fine while editing pics at the computer, but it's not good for an
end-format.
It might be an overkill of informations but klick here:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_bitmap>
Holger
| | | | | | |
