NissanPatrol wrote:
How do I post photos from flickr
I searched the forum could not find relevant information, or is it possible?
Thanks
This is how I do it, might be other ways. For for flickr while you are viewing your photos click on the share button then embed. (from here there is a drop down about what size you want to get the URL for) You'll get a URL like below.
1) If on a phone or smaller tablet make sure to use the Mobile version of the site (activated by a big Red button at the bottom of any page)
2) With the regular version of the site you can click on any image in a thread and it resizes the image to fit your screen and puts it on a nice black background. Once you've clicked on any image to enter that mode, you can use arrow keys to flip between every image on the entire page (not just each post).
I see. On mobile (iPhone) the photos take the full width of the screen and the text in between them is readable. But on my firefox screen on my laptop or desktop PC, the layout appears broken in the default view (the images don't fit the screen). When I click on the image, it took about 1 minute with a black screen before it showed the image, after which it showed the other images rapidly. On some browsers the cross to close the zoomed-in view is hard to hit correctly, which is why I don't use the scaled view normally (it has been too difficult to get out of, but now seems to be easy enough). Perhaps it is just designed for viewing on a different resolution screen than I have.
I would prefer a layout of text and images so that the images can be seen as whole images with one glance and the text would be readable, but right now the images are huge compared to the size of text. In print publications usually the text is made large enough to read and images scaled to such a size that they fit the page nicely. I would generally consider web sites that follow such an approach more reader-friendly. In general I want to see the text when I am viewing the image.
E.g. on the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper web site (hs.fi), the text and images are laid out in a readable fashion. E.g.
ilkka_nissila wrote:
I see. On mobile (iPhone) the photos take the full width of the screen and the text in between them is readable. But on my firefox screen on my laptop or desktop PC, the layout appears broken in the default view (the images don't fit the screen). When I click on the image, it took about 1 minute with a black screen before it showed the image, after which it showed the other images rapidly. On some browsers the cross to close the zoomed-in view is hard to hit correctly, which is why I don't use the scaled view normally (it has been too difficult to get out of, but now seems to be easy enough). Perhaps it is just designed for viewing on a different resolution screen than I have.
I would prefer a layout of text and images so that the images can be seen as whole images with one glance and the text would be readable, but right now the images are huge compared to the size of text. In print publications usually the text is made large enough to read and images scaled to such a size that they fit the page nicely. I would generally consider web sites that follow such an approach more reader-friendly. In general I want to see the text when I am viewing the image.
E.g. on the Helsingin Sanomat newspaper web site (hs.fi), the text and images are laid out in a readable fashion. E.g.
If you click on the image, you can see a larger version.
I know this is off topic, sorry about that....Show more →
My annoyance is the iPad. Because it scales everything you can't see images on websites at their actual size, so unless someone uploads a photo large enough every photos looks pretty blah. I wish you could use an iPad with actual pixels instead of scales in web browsers. At least things like Lightroom (for the iPad) can do it correctly with images.
Lance B wrote:
I am of the belief that the bigger the better as long as the image stands up to it.
The images I referred to do not stand up to their posted size, IMO. They would look better to the majority of FM'ers viewing them if they were posted around 1200 to 1500 pixels across. It is obvious to me that they lost sharpness at those larger sizes. Most FM'ers are not interested in pixel-peeping or interested in downsizing them on their screens. I would be willing to bet that over 95% of those viewing images here do not do so on 32" screens.
I also generally do not critique unless it is asked for. However, I don't consider commenting on the size of an image a critique of it. It is advice.
This site is now inundated with the number of images posted compared to 10 or 15 years ago. For example, the N&W Forum used to have a limit of five images per post. Now you can get 10, 20, 30, 40 images in a single posting. Maybe others have the time to look at and/or comment on all those images, but I don't. As a result, if an image is posted so large that I can't see all of it on my 27" screen, I will just not look at it. I also don't have the time or inclination to click on links.
All my photos look sharper on my camera's LCD screen than they do when I get home and view them on my computer.
Imagemaster wrote:
They would look better to the majority of FM'ers viewing them if they were posted around 1200 to 1500 pixels across. It is obvious to me that they lost sharpness at those larger sizes. Most FM'ers are not interested in pixel-peeping or interested in downsizing them on their screens. I would be willing to bet that over 95% of those viewing images here do not do so on 32" screens.
Respectfully, it sounds like you're speaking for all FM users and I don't think you're in a position to do that. (I hope that doesn't sound too argumentative-- I also can't speak for all FM users )
I strongly agree with Lance B- bigger is better when seeking to maximize others' enjoyment of ones images. I respect folks who feel they need to post small images out of fear of copyright issues, but intentionally posting smaller images to "enhance" viewing quality is nonsensical IMHO.
I for one greatly appreciate being able to view FM members' images large and crisp on my 24" 4k Retina monitor. Your suggested pixel dimensions would be too small unless the image was scaled to 200% or 300%, which looks horrible. All the 5K iMac users out there and Windows HighDPI users would have it even worse.
Perhaps this discussion should be moved out of the 500pf Images thread though. I'd post an obligatory 500pf image to keep things on-topic but mine's still on order. ;-)
kimballistic wrote:
Respectfully, it sounds like you're speaking for all FM users and I don't think you're in a position to do that.
Really? I was not speaking for all FM users. If you don't thnk I am speaking for what the majority of FM users think on this subject, then prove me wrong. I suggest you look at a large number of the images posted and tell me what the average size is. Then tell me why the average size posted is under 1600 pixels.
I strongly agree with Lance B- bigger is better when seeking to maximize others' enjoyment of ones images.
Agree all you want, that does not mean your view is the majority view. At what point do you think this "bigger is better" becomes ridiculous?
I respect folks who feel they need to post small images out of fear of copyright issues, but intentionally posting smaller images to "enhance" viewing quality is nonsensical IMHO.
And IMHO intentionally posting excessively large images to "enhance viewing quality" is nonsensical. If that is your main concern, you can always ask to have the RAW files sent to you so you can view at any size you want.
I for one greatly appreciate being able to view FM members' images large and crisp on my 24" 4k Retina monitor. Your suggested pixel dimensions would be too small unless the image was scaled to 200% or 300%, which looks horrible. All the 5K iMac users out there and Windows HighDPI users would have it even worse.
All your opinion once again. Again, I suggest the majority of images posted (and that most of us enjoy) are NOT horizontally more than 1600 pixels. Prove me wrong.
Thankfully, for most of us, the main criteria for enjoying posted photos is the subject matter, not how sharp an image looks. Of course there are always those (mostly pixel-peepers) who over-sharpen their images, as well as those who over-saturate their images because they have to "pop".
I suggest you look at the "Nature & Wildlife: Featured thread of the week", and tell me how many of those winning images were posted at 1600 pixels or larger.
I was once again reminded how much better the Z50 does with the 1.4TC than the D500. D500 was missing right and left on perched birds once the 1.4TC was on. The Z50 was nailing them. DSLRs are DEAD TO ME....
Imagemaster wrote:
The images I referred to do not stand up to their posted size, IMO. They would look better to the majority of FM'ers viewing them if they were posted around 1200 to 1500 pixels across. It is obvious to me that they lost sharpness at those larger sizes. Most FM'ers are not interested in pixel-peeping or interested in downsizing them on their screens. I would be willing to bet that over 95% of those viewing images here do not do so on 32" screens.
Yes, those particular images were a bit noisy and probably would have benefitted a smaller size or better post process work.
I also generally do not critique unless it is asked for. However, I don't consider commenting on the size of an image a critique of it. It is advice.
My reference to critiquing was that Omar (NissanPatrol) asked why there was no critiquing and I replied to him, not the fact that you gave some advice on image sizes, which is fair enough.
This site is now inundated with the number of images posted compared to 10 or 15 years ago. For example, the N&W Forum used to have a limit of five images per post. Now you can get 10, 20, 30, 40 images in a single posting. Maybe others have the time to look at and/or comment on all those images, but I don't. As a result, if an image is posted so large that I can't see all of it on my 27" screen, I will just not look at it. I also don't have the time or inclination to click on links. ...Show more →
Is your 27" screen HD or UHD? I have a 27" HD screen at work and I just scroll + CTRL to see the image smaller if required but even then I can usually tell what the image is like without doing that and only miss a small part of the image if I don't. It's just that there are so many UHD screens being used nowadays especially by the photography people as we generally want to take advantage of all those extra pixels our high res cameras have now. I had a DELL 27" Ultrasharp "photographic" UHD screen and now have a 32" DELL Ultrasharp 32" "photographic" UHD and it is incredible. To see my images on a large screen at full res looks amazing.
All my photos look sharper on my camera's LCD screen than they do when I get home and view them on my computer.
gotta love when the gestapo shows up to tell everyone how the forum should be run.
and as always, do as i say not as i do
i have seen the "master" say how there should be a dislike button, and how people intentionally will hand out a "thanks" in the thread they started just to get it to the top of the page.
but yet...the "master" just resurrected 2 of his already damn near a year old threads with a "thanks", just to get them to the top of the page again, one thread with 10 pictures in it that he just complained about above, the "master"...do as i say and never mind what i do
brian_sp wrote:
gotta love when the gestapo shows up to tell everyone how the forum should be run.
and as always, do as i say not as i do
i have seen the "master" say how there should be a dislike button, and how people intentionally will hand out a "thanks" in the thread they started just to get it to the top of the page.
but yet...the "master" just resurrected 2 of his already damn near a year old threads with a "thanks", just to get them to the top of the page again, one thread with 10 pictures in it that he just complained about above, the "master"...do as i say and never mind what i do ...Show more →
Whoopee, the whiner comes out to regurgitate yet again. Starting off as usual with his petty little name-calling.
Perhaps some of us in self-isolation at this time have enough time to go back and thank those that commented on their photos. Ever think about that Mr. Presumptuous?
Your tough luck if you presume someone is telling everyone how the forum should be run when they are just pointing out Fred's guidlines on how the forum should be run. Don't like his guidelines, take it up with Fred.
Interesting that you are so keen on looking through my past postings. A real fan, eh?
While you are at it, why don't you go through all my past threads when there was a limit of 5 images per posting and tell us how many times I exceeded that limit?
And the HIDE ME button is much more effective than a DISLIKE button. Bye, bye, once again.
P.S. Try Googling "imagemaster" and see how many hits you get that do not relate to me. Perhaps you could let them all know that you find them using that name offensive to you.
I was once again reminded how much better the Z50 does with the 1.4TC than the D500. D500 was missing right and left on perched birds once the 1.4TC was on. The Z50 was nailing them. DSLRs are DEAD TO ME....
Awesome images Geoff, although we know they would look better if posted at a larger size.
How would you compare the C-AF ot the Z50 to the D500? Nowhere as good as the A9, I take it?
Imagemaster wrote:
Interesting that you are so keen on looking through my past postings. A real fan, eh?
kind of hard to miss them when you hand out "thanks" just to get it to the top or the page, had absolutely nothing to with me looking through your past post, past, present, future, couldn't care less about your posts
and if you want to talk about whiners, who is the one whining about picture sizes, numbers of pictures someone posted, the sky being blue, water being wet, of all the posts in the thread here i did not see one person calling on you to come and interject your whining opinions
Imagemaster wrote:
And the HIDE ME button is much more effective than a DISLIKE button. Bye, bye, once again.
Imagemaster wrote:
Awesome images Geoff, although we know they would look better if posted at a larger size.
How would you compare the C-AF ot the Z50 to the D500? Nowhere as good as the A9, I take it?
Not Geoff obviously but I have the D500 and Z50 so I can comment there. In terms of speed IMO the AF isn’t even close, the D500 is faster and tracks better. The major draw back I have with it (and the z6) is that at close to min focus distance the camera will do its usual focus far then near (the D500 does that to) but the Z bodies go through that cycle much slower and sometimes refuse to focus.
I’ve noticed it a lot more since I got the blind for the back yard. I have a branch setup as a perch for the birds and if I’m shooting something in the trees beyond the branch and try to focus back quickly to the branch the D500 will get there every time while the Z bodies won’t.
It’s annoying (beyond missing shots) because I find the Z bodies focus more accurately, especially with the 1.4x TC attached to the 500PF. Also, with the blind shooting the silent shutter is wonderful for not scaring off the more skittish birds.
Another comparison is that the s-af of my Pany G9 is faster then either Z body.
I’d pay good money for a D500 mirrorless from Nikon.
palmor wrote:
Not Geoff obviously but I have the D500 and Z50 so I can comment there. In terms of speed IMO the AF isn’t even close, the D500 is faster and tracks better. The major draw back I have with it (and the z6) is that at close to min focus distance the camera will do its usual focus far then near (the D500 does that to) but the Z bodies go through that cycle much slower and sometimes refuse to focus.
I’ve noticed it a lot more since I got the blind for the back yard. I have a branch setup as a perch for the birds and if I’m shooting something in the trees beyond the branch and try to focus back quickly to the branch the D500 will get there every time while the Z bodies won’t.
It’s annoying (beyond missing shots) because I find the Z bodies focus more accurately, especially with the 1.4x TC attached to the 500PF. Also, with the blind shooting the silent shutter is wonderful for not scaring off the more skittish birds.
Another comparison is that the s-af of my Pany G9 is faster then either Z body.
I’d pay good money for a D500 mirrorless from Nikon. ...Show more →
Very early this spring (when the leaves were buds), I had the same problem with my 500PF; i.e. not acquiring the perching bird , but focusing off into the deep background. I most often could not recover the AF quickly enough to capture the bird.
Solution: Geoff suggested I use the button on the 500PF barrel to always focus on a predetermined point. You can do the same; i.e. set that button to focus on that branch you have setup for a perch. It would be perfect for that.... instant recovery.
For my purposes, I now am not sure if I will continue to use the barrel button for that purpose (focusing on a preset spot, as mentioned) or using it to switch to AutoAF for BIF or any fast action. I'll be experimenting
)
