DSLRUsers.com

Before i do another bad, can i clarify what '4 images per post' means? and what is/isnt allowed here ?

1. 4 images per post - ive got conflicting answers already from just reading some posts by members / mods / admin etc .... i believe 1 post is a reply to a topic. So, if i could that means to post 8 pics - i just reply to my own post ? (NOT THAT I WILL - ITS A LITTLE CONFUSSING) that needs clarification.

2. Ok - say i have a sequence shot of 5 images ? can i post it as 1 image as a tripech (think thats how its spelt) keeping under the guidelines of 800px wide/tall

3. What about the "Northern Lights" thread ? What was wrong there - i can see 4 images (as defined by tags)

4. phpbb3 has the power of flash.... you could turn it on and we'd be able to add like a mini slideshow... What about 10 images as a .gif ????? surrounded by [img] tags? - 1 image?????

I would just like this clarified by the owner before i make a boo-boo to stuff around and argue with mods that this is legit etc

Brendan

Simply one person within a thread can post 4 images @ 800 pixels wide.
How the images a composited does not matter

Bruce

Please bear in mind that the rule of FOUR images per person, per thread is there because quite a lot of us are still using dialup due to lack of broadband availability in regional areas. So when you post images, keep that in mind as we want to make the experience of DSLRusers good for everybody.

If you post two lots of four images, then expect that your second post will be frowned upon by moderators.

If you want to post more than four, then just provide text links so people can decide if they want to see them and can do so if they feel like they want to.

Brendan

4 images to a post means the entire thread otherwise it would be a pretty silly guideline wouldn't it. I assume you've taken the time to read the FAQ on this matter which has much more detail on this topic.

It's a review and critiques area NOT a gallery area (that's why we all have our pics in galleries elsewhere). Because that is the purpose of the area I think the northern lights post is dumb too (YMMV). I'm not sure exactly how many images Tyrone included within each 800 pixel group, but there are way too many (and they are way too small) for any reasonable critique other than to say "I like the pretty colours" My view is this probably does a disservice to some fine images.

As for Flash - why would we need mini slide shows and even more bandwidth in a review and critiques area? see above

So:
1. Go read the FAQ if you haven't already
2. Fix the number of images in your other post (Edit: Apologies - I see you've done that already - thanks)
3. Use the Image Reviews and Critiques area for that purpose
4. Once you've been around longer and become a full member you'll have access to the Gallery Updates area (as I mentioned in your other post) and then if you have lots of images you want to show off (nothing wrong with that BTW) then you can link us to your gallery there.

Thanks in adance for (a) asking this question in the firstplace and (b) your co-operation in adhering to the guidleines.

Just to further what Brendan was saying, I post 4 images of whatever (cars knowing me). Thats the first post in the thread.

So, people come on and comment, and maybe say "show me more", so I post another 4. Is that outside the rules? Also, what if someone says "I wont start a new thread, heres my images" and also posts 4? Next thing theres 12 images in a thread?

Is that outside the rules?

Just curious.....

Alan, the intent of the rule is as per Steve's comment (you possibly being one of the people affected). If there are two posts each with 4 images, as soon as you open the thread all 8 images will start to load. This as you are aware can virtually stop a slow connection or ensure a fifteen minute wait. We would prefer 4 of your representative shots and then links to individual images or a link to your site which might be the section "Eastern Creek 01.01.2001" or your site as a whole. Either way the idea is to have as low a load as possible in the opening of the thread, then the viewer can decide how much they want based on interest and download capability.

Raskill wrote:Just to further what Brendan was saying, I post 4 images of whatever (cars knowing me). Thats the first post in the thread.

So, people come on and comment, and maybe say "show me more", so I post another 4. Is that outside the rules? Also, what if someone says "I wont start a new thread, heres my images" and also posts 4? Next thing theres 12 images in a thread?

Is that outside the rules?

Just curious.....

Alan

That's a reasonable question - generally it's 4 for the entire thread, since we're concerned about two issues - manageable numbers for critique and download size. To answer your specific questions:

1. If there is a lot of "show me more" then a few more may make sense, but as Glen has said, via a link to the gallery. If you embedded another image or two we'd play it by ear, but like much in life caution is a virtue
2. "I wont start a new thread, heres my images" - definitely a no-no. If someone is on dialup and there are multiple images in multiple posts within the thread then it just takes longer to download. It also makes critique difficult since when referring to images you have to do things like say "image #7" or "image #3 in the second group of 4" - you get the idea

Finally these are guidelines and, as said in the FAQ, latitude exists if there are good reasons - if in doubt a quick PM to a mod can sort things out. I can point to a simple case where more than 4 is fine in a post by Matt. K. Mat shared 4 images. Along the way Geoff asked a question about the albino wallaby. I had a shot of the signage at Featherdale answerring Geoff's question in lots of detail and so added that image in my post. If this was someone other than me doing it the result would be the same - that extra 5th image is fine. If on the other hand I'd posted 4 more images of mine taken at the same spot I'd be doing the wrong thing - more sense to have started my own separate thread for critique . HTH

lavenlaar wrote:
I would just like this clarified by the owner before i make a boo-boo to stuff around and argue with mods that this is legit etc

Brendan

There won't be an argument.

Just a ruling.

Something like this is also possible - still only 200k same as a pic at 800px (this is just been resized to the buggery)

If this is not within the guidelines no probs !

- but most websites dont like people putting in links to save the members too for dodgy sites.
We've got a rule saying "no links to sites that have popups/unders etc" I got an iMac so im overly safe against viruses.

Im happy to follow the rules - but just wanted clarification - something that hasnt been discussed in depth from what i could see.

Now that is just plain annoying

Absolutely annoying and rather pointless. Lavenlaar, I cant see how a rapidly changing gif gives either an opportunity for you to show your work or for critique. As such, I cant see how you think it is possible as it would get deleted fairly quickly. I really cant see the point, and I think you have to consider that if you wish to post such things this probably isn't the forum for you.

lavenlaar wrote:- but most websites dont like people putting in links to save the members too for dodgy sites.

And we don't either. I have been known to pull a couple of members up over this sort of thing.

As a general observation, our members use a few well known sites for hosting their galleries, or else they use their own private webspace. Neither of these options (within the common image hosting services) cause our members any issues with respect to pop-ups etc. Usually, if/when we have pop-up issues, it's been when someone has embedded a link to a site that's beyond the normal scope that we see. Possibly that's beyond the scope of this forum, but then, we like to have a very broad base of things that we consider to be appropriate, within the greater realm of this site.

I see that the mods and other members have done an excellent job of answering your questions. But please permit me to emphasise a couple of points for you: Our Image Reviews section is named as it is for a very good reason. If you are able to tell me how we can effectively critique a whole gaggle of images on the one screen, or how we can effectively critique images that do not even fit on a screen, then I'm all ears. If you can tell me how we can make the viewing of the site a pleasant experience for those on dial-up (and that even includes at least one of our moderators as well as several of our more respected members) while permitting massive file sizes or multiple images, then I'm all ears. And if you can tell me how showing more than just a handful of images, except in circumstances such as demonstrating a particular technique, is anything other than the poster trying to take an ego trip, then I'm all ears.

So, one of our primary goals here is to try to make the viewing experience for everybody a pleasant one. Put that one right up there with helping our members to improve their photographic knowledge and skills.

Now, if you keep those simple objectives in mind as a part of your underlying posting criteria, I think you'll agree that it's pretty bloody difficult to go astray.

Im happy to follow the rules

I'm really thrilled to hear this. It saves me from issuing a warning and/or banning you.

Seriously, I, and the mods, are glad and grateful that you have asked your questions. We never have any issues when a member finds that something is unclear, and the best way to have something clarified is to do exactly as you have done.

And as you can see, your question led to a few more, and none of that is bad.

Thank you for taking the time to make your post; we do appreciate the thought and efforts to which you went.

lavenlaar wrote:4. phpbb3 has the power of flash.... you could turn it on and we'd be able to add like a mini slideshow...

Specifically on this point, I do recognise that some people like Flash. Some people also like websites that are impossible to navigate or comprehend, because they think it might be cool.

Often it seems that these two groups of people converge, but I'm not a member of either of those groups.

Yes, I could turn flash on, but before I do that, I would need to be convinced that there's a benefit to our members, or an improvement in the users' forum experience, in doing that.

While I don't want anyone to think my mind is closed in this matter, I suspect that hell will freeze over before either of the above events would occur.

Flash is the darling child of moronic designers.

sirhc55 wrote:Flash is the darling child of moronic designers.

accurate

There are only two types of flash that have worth:

1) Electronic flash for lighting subjects in photography
2) A pretty girl lifting her top.

ATJ wrote:There are only two types of flash that have worth:

1) Electronic flash for lighting subjects in photography
2) A pretty girl lifting her top.

ATJ wrote:There are only two types of flash that have worth:

1) Electronic flash for lighting subjects in photography
2) A pretty girl lifting her top.

This topic seems to be exhausting everyone's imagination, and thus seems to be exhausted.

Consider it locked.