Gordon Lightfoot Forums - View Single Post

johnfowles · 06-22-2006, 12:10 PM

Further to the above and as a test to avoid making a fool of myself in replying to Char's picture posting on the general forum

Great Char
No I do not think I ever saw the full sized version of that picture before
A very useful find thank you
I thought that this would be a useful example of using smaller images and thumbnails so, would everybody please bear with me a moment, (In view of the problems with dial-up-downloding I am using only small files to display
Char you obviously sussed out the original that you linked to was way too large to show here as it
1441 by 1801 pixels and the file size is a wapping 730,088 bytes
However I did suggest that if you had scanned it you could consider either the link to the uploaded picture file or use the imageshack thumbnail link.
It looks like you might have saved the picture instead from your quoted web location then uploaded it
and then pisplayed just the small thumbnail which on your upload is at:-
http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/715...oot14xd.th.jpg

your displayed thumbnail is as the imageshack added on text shows presumably that you uploded a reduced size file that was only
27KB and is only 512 by 640 pixels
Now I have a suspicion that good pupil that you are you used photogadget first to make a smaller version of the original so that you could link to it via a thumbnail
Let me test that theory:-
the thumbnail you displayed is actually 122 by 167 pixels
and its file size a mere 3939 bytes

To demonstrate what I was getting at in my posting suggesting that you use your scanner and now in this posting I have saved the full sized file and then uploaded it myself to imageshack. On a dial up that obviously took quite a long time
but I eventually had it full sized at:-
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7...htfoot13wm.jpg
which was the last supplied link annotated "Direct link to image"
In fact the third link called "Thumbnail for forums (2)"
should display a much smaller thumbnail of (I checked it by going to "my images")
122 by 167 pixels 3947 bytes
and with an addesss of
http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7...oot13wm.th.jpg
I'll display that here for comparision with what you displayed above

the same thumb using the third link code should now display that same thumb as a clickable link to the full sized picture

alternatively I then ventured down what I assumed was your route above
I made two smaller versions using photogadget
and mine came out at:-
1 using the top option "640x 480"
I got a file of 384 by 480 and 29,463 bytes
2 using the second option "800 by 600"
the file was then 480 by 600 and 43002 bytes.
Neither seem to be done the way yours was though so Ieft it at that for now.
OK end of my attempt to fill in the picture so to speak

[ June 22, 2006, 12:25: Message edited by: johnfowles ]

06-22-2006, 12:10 PM	#8
johnfowles Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: New Jersey U.S.A. ex UK and Canada Posts: 4,846	Further to the above and as a test to avoid making a fool of myself in replying to Char's picture posting on the general forum Great Char No I do not think I ever saw the full sized version of that picture before A very useful find thank you I thought that this would be a useful example of using smaller images and thumbnails so, would everybody please bear with me a moment, (In view of the problems with dial-up-downloding I am using only small files to display Char you obviously sussed out the original that you linked to was way too large to show here as it 1441 by 1801 pixels and the file size is a wapping 730,088 bytes However I did suggest that if you had scanned it you could consider either the link to the uploaded picture file or use the imageshack thumbnail link. It looks like you might have saved the picture instead from your quoted web location then uploaded it and then pisplayed just the small thumbnail which on your upload is at:- http://img61.imageshack.us/img61/715...oot14xd.th.jpg your displayed thumbnail is as the imageshack added on text shows presumably that you uploded a reduced size file that was only 27KB and is only 512 by 640 pixels Now I have a suspicion that good pupil that you are you used photogadget first to make a smaller version of the original so that you could link to it via a thumbnail Let me test that theory:- the thumbnail you displayed is actually 122 by 167 pixels and its file size a mere 3939 bytes To demonstrate what I was getting at in my posting suggesting that you use your scanner and now in this posting I have saved the full sized file and then uploaded it myself to imageshack. On a dial up that obviously took quite a long time but I eventually had it full sized at:- http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7...htfoot13wm.jpg which was the last supplied link annotated "Direct link to image" In fact the third link called "Thumbnail for forums (2)" should display a much smaller thumbnail of (I checked it by going to "my images") 122 by 167 pixels 3947 bytes and with an addesss of http://img189.imageshack.us/img189/7...oot13wm.th.jpg I'll display that here for comparision with what you displayed above the same thumb using the third link code should now display that same thumb as a clickable link to the full sized picture alternatively I then ventured down what I assumed was your route above I made two smaller versions using photogadget and mine came out at:- 1 using the top option "640x 480" I got a file of 384 by 480 and 29,463 bytes 2 using the second option "800 by 600" the file was then 480 by 600 and 43002 bytes. Neither seem to be done the way yours was though so Ieft it at that for now. OK end of my attempt to fill in the picture so to speak [ June 22, 2006, 12:25: Message edited by: johnfowles ]