The Gallery & Links Tool (FAQ) Post pics in threads, not just attachments!

You got it buddy.

Fuck, it worked as well! I'll stick more up in about three weeks from now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rley69

Fuck, it worked as well! I'll stick more up in about three weeks from now.

---

If you told me 3 weeks, I wouldn't have bothered helping you!:D

Give us a few today.

Well, the point is I have to go back to the DR for two weeks to take some new ones!

However, I do have some left and now I've got the hang of this I will post some more tonight.

I arrive the day after you leave, too bad.

There is a limit for attachments, basically because most people upload direct from their camera at rediculous sizes of 2560X1920 at HQ (10/100% on JPEG scale), which is just fine if you plan on having them printed on glossy paper at your neighborhood photo shop. The limitations of monitors/LCD/etc means that a Low Quality (3/30% or lower on the JPEG scale) 800X640 picture will look the same as the above mentioned straight from the camera picture! Well except for size but who wants to scroll left/right to see a picture?

The Gallery software reduces the quality (but not size) of the pictures automatically. I prefer if people when reducing the size also reduce the quality but again with some people it's like pulling teeth! So there is no limit on the Gallery uploads for members!

Sorry but any JPEG bigger then 30-40KB is a WASTE! I am baffled why you even use a MAC, a MAC user should know better! As a member of Pictures, you are allotted 2MB, which equals about 50-70 pictures as attachments. The fact that you uploaded around a dozen pics and hit the limit tells me you are probably uploading direct from the camera.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Tomas

There is a limit for attachments, basically because most people upload direct from their camera at rediculous sizes of 2560X1920 at HQ (10/100% on JPEG scale), which is just fine if you plan on having them printed on glossy paper at your neighborhood photo shop. The limitations of monitors/LCD/etc means that a Low Quality (3/30% or lower on the JPEG scale) 800X640 picture will look the same as the above mentioned straight from the camera picture! Well except for size but who wants to scroll left/right to see a picture?

The Gallery software reduces the quality (but not size) of the pictures automatically. I prefer if people when reducing the size also reduce the quality but again with some people it's like pulling teeth! So there is no limit on the Gallery uploads for members!

Sorry but any JPEG bigger then 30-40KB is a WASTE! I am baffled why you even use a MAC, a MAC user should know better! As a member of Pictures, you are allotted 2MB, which equals about 50-70 pictures as attachments. The fact that you uploaded around a dozen pics and hit the limit tells me you are probably uploading direct from the camera.

---

Actually my pics are coming straight out of iphoto, at a considerably reduced size, which I would have thought is about as Mac like as you can get. Perhaps you should ask Kevyboy for advice about writing the next FAQ ...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Tomas

I am baffled why you even use a MAC

---

Yeah! You tell him, DT!!

I would tell him to stick his Mac up his ass, but he doesn't care for that sort of talk. Prude.

Have a great trip rley69! Sorry our trips didn't coincide or I might have opened up your mind (and sundry other orifices). Take plenty of pictures, I'm sure DT can work something out. We don't want to let any really depraved pictures slip away.

Super picture of Sandra. I have never fancied her, especially since she slept in my bed all night and kept her knickers on (damned insulting to my manhood that) but she looks really lovely in your picture. I could not take a picture that well to save my life. I just point and click and with luck one or two are usable out of dozens. I do a great disservice to the girls I photograph but you make Sandra look a lot better than I have ever seen her in real life, and I have seen her plenty. I think she is nailed to the bar stool at Blackbeards. How long ago was that?

Well, I've now posted what I have and hopefully there will be a load more to stick up (with Weyland around perhaps I should rephrase that) in a few weeks.

Actually, you know I had quite a good time with Sandra although, as I've just said in another thread, she was a bit of an old pro. Sometimes I get on with that type of girl. Perhaps that's why she looks quite perky in the picture.

anyone that knows anything knows how superior the mac is . . . windows works real good for Internet porn tho ! !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rley69

Actually my pics are coming straight out of iphoto, at a considerably reduced size, which I would have thought is about as Mac like as you can get. Perhaps you should ask Kevyboy for advice about writing the next FAQ ...

---

I thought it was very clear & concise. Common questions with simple answers including pictures. Please let me know how it can be any clearer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rley69

Perhaps you should ask Kevyboy for advice about writing the next FAQ ...

---

DonTomas
I must apologise for my fellow countryman's ungrateful impertinence. He cannot help it, he comes from North of the Thames. Probably races whippets and stores coal in the bathtub.