Image posting problem

Somethings amiss about the 400 X 400, 41 KB image post parameter. I've tried posting 320 X 240 images(jpeg) to no avail, always getting "image is too large." I see images that would appear to be much larger than the 400 X 400 already posted by others, yet my measly 320 X 240 doesn't get accepted?
What gives? Is there a logical explanation?

BTW, this is not an isolated incident.

Thanks.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

Somethings amiss about the 400 X 400, 41 KB image post parameter. I've tried posting 320 X 240 images(jpeg) to no avail, always getting "image is too large." I see images that would appear to be much larger than the 400 X 400 already posted by others, yet my measly 320 X 240 doesn't get accepted?
What gives? Is there a logical explanation?

BTW, this is not an isolated incident.

Thanks.

Are your images exceeding the other parameter--a max 41.4 KB file size? (That's the max in our current vB software.) If so, you can try reducing the resolution of the images (X by X dpi) or reducing the "Save" quality. Doing those things might bring the file size down to no more than 41.4 KB.

But there's a larger issue: You're using Attachments to post umpty images from the Internet, right? I don't know whether you've noticed, but the other kids don't do that. Instead of using Attachments, they use the IMG function. I strongly advise you to be like the other kids, save Lois a boatload of bandwidth, and save yourself unnecessary steps!

Please see this post:

How to use the IMG function (to post pictures from the Internet)

Those instructions are for IE, but you can probably figure out how they apply to other browsers. If you have any problems, many posters can help you.

Originally Posted by bluenoter

Are your images exceeding the other parameter--a max 41.4 KB file size? (That's the max in our current vB software.) If so, you can try reducing the resolution of the images (X by X dpi) or reducing the "Save" quality. Doing those things might bring the file size down to no more than 41.4 KB.

But there's a larger issue: You're using Attachments to post umpty images from the Internet, right? I don't know whether you've noticed, but the other kids don't do that. Instead of using Attachments, they use the IMG function. I strongly advise you to be like the other kids, save Lois a boatload of bandwidth, and save yourself unnecessary steps!

Please see this post:

How to use the IMG function (to post pictures from the Internet)

Those instructions are for IE, but you can probably figure out how they apply to other browsers. If you have any problems, many posters can help you.

I'll study what you've said[I'm pretty sure that I've been under the 41.4 KB limitation, too.] BTW, so far, all the images that I've posted have been uploaded from my computer, not the internet; if that makes a difference. [Maybe that's why other's images have been so much larger, they're downloaded from the net....would(and why, I wonder) that make a difference as far as parameters go?]

Thanks.

[Scott Dolan]

And you're trying to post them as attachments?

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

And you're trying to post them as attachments?

NO.

Just as regular images, uploaded from my computer, within the Jazzcorner's given parameters.

[Needless to say, I don't understand it. This is the first time and place that I've had the problem.]

[Scott Dolan]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

NO.

Just as regular images, uploaded from my computer, within the Jazzcorner's given parameters.

[Needless to say, I don't understand it. This is the first time and place that I've had the problem.]

Post them as attachments.

[bluenoter]

Fweeet! (Whistle!) Stop!

What we have here is a major failure to communicate.

Jazzbluescat, I'm going to PM you my e-mail address, and I'd like you to e-mail me just one of the pictures that JC is rejecting as being "too big."

I'd also like to clear up what you're doing when you're uploading an image "from your computer" to JC and clear up where your images came from before they were on your computer.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

[Maybe that's why other's images have been so much larger, they're downloaded from the net....would(and why, I wonder) that make a difference as far as parameters go?]

Others' images have been from the Internet (usually)--but not downloaded and then uploaded again, just linked by means of the IMG function. JC doesn't have to host them; they're still being hosted by the websites that they came from. That's why they don't have a size limit; it's not Lois's bandwidth that's being used.

See your PM from me, please.

Problem solved, I think. I just figured out that even though the 400X400 parameter is met, the image can be over the 41.1 KB limit, rendering it unacceptable.
[I didn't think it mattered unless it was a gif, or a moving image; and wasn't paying attention.]

[Also, I'll try to limit uploading from my computer in order to conserve bandwidth.]

Thanks bluenoter.

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by jazzbluescat

[Also, I'll try to limit uploading from my computer in order to conserve bandwidth.]

I just sent you a second PM.

I urge you to use a completely different method for posting any picture
from the Internet--the IMG function. Here again is the link to the instructions:

How to use the IMG function (to post pictures from the Internet)

That way,

--You won't be using any of JC's bandwidth unnecessarily,
--You'll be saving yourself time and trouble, and
--You'll be doing what the other kids do.

No downloading or uploading is involved!

[Scott Dolan]

Fweeet?

[bluenoter]

Originally Posted by Scott Dolan

Fweeet?

Bad ear? Too little exposure to traffic cops and referees?