Seiko 7A38 - by the numbers

Forums

Post Reply
Forum Home > General Discussion > Sticky: How to upload a photo to this forum ....

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Most of you have already written posts on other watch forums including remotely-hosted embedded photo images. ;)

It's not difficult on this forum either - just slightly different (in the coding you use, and how you actually do it).

First of all, if you haven't already got one, you'll need to open a photo hosting account on Flickr, ImageShack or Photobucket.

I've used all three at various times but for ease of use I'd recommend Photobucket.

You'll need to upload your photos first. Here's a screen-print of one of my Photobucket sub-albums I've been using earlier today:




You may notice that the album also contains some photos of Julio's 7A38-6000, besides my own. ;)

Let's use that over-lit photo of my 7A38-6000 in the bottom left hand corner as an example (I'll scroll up a bit too).

Once you've uploaded and organized your photos, as you move your mouse cursor across them you'll see a pop-up:




Normally, on most other forums, you'll need to grab the IMG code (for your chosen photo) - But NOT on this forum.

Instead, you need to click on the Direct Link box, until you see the message Copied - like this:



Again, slightly different from other forum software, you do NOT just drop the code you've clicked straight into the text body.

If you do, this is what will happen: http://i1194.photobucket.com/albums/aa373/Seiko7A38/7A38-60x0/P1030867-Resized.jpg

Instead, you need to click on the 'Insert Image' icon (to the left of the smiley), which opens a pop-up window, like this:




Then right-click your mouse and drop (Paste) the link you've copied into the pop-up, and click OK .... and Hey Presto !! :D



Unless you go 'Pro' on Flickr or Photobucket, your maximum photo upload size is likely to be restricted / reduced to 1024x768.

Which are sensible sizes for sharing online, IMO - regardless at whatever multi-megapixel resolution you may have taken them at. 

The forum software auto-resizes then down to match the page width. I think about 850 pixels wide is probably as big as it will go.

Embedded photos aren't 'clickable' as such, but if you right-click and save them - you'll get the original uploaded size / resolution. ;)


February 9, 2012 at 1:17 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Using Flickr is the opposite way round to Photobucket, and a bit fiddlier and trickier - at least on this forum, anyway. :roll:

Let's start off with the photos already uploaded to my Flickr Photostream. The same image happened to be on the front page:



Click on the particular image you wish to post - in this case, the same over-lit photo of my 7A38-6000:




Then click on the 'Share' button above the top left corner of the photo, and you'll get a pop-up:




If you grab the link (as you did in Photobucket), and drop it into the 'Insert Image' pop-up window, all you'll get is a SpaceBall. :(

There is no .jpg suffix on the end of the Flickr link - and trying to be smart, and adding one on yourself will do you no good at all.

Similarly, trying to use the 'Insert Link' icon in the text box toolbar instead, will end up just giving you a link to the photo, like this:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/seiko_7a38/5398229646/


No, this time, using Flickr, you have to use the HTML / BB Code.

Now I know Brandon (as a Flickr user) has already proven this can be done, but he cheated a bit, and used a 640x480 image. ;)




You simply highlight the HTML text (Flickr will make sure you get all of it), copy it and drop it ....

NOT into the 'Insert Image' pop-up on here, but straight into the body of the text - like this - et Voilà ! 8)


Seiko 7A38-6000 (SAA039J)


If you want to be a real smartie-pants and take advantage of our new wider page format, you'll want to use 1024x768, won't you ? :D




Well if you try the same trick of dropping the HTML coding for a 1024x768 sized image straight into the text box, you'll end up with this:


Seiko 7A38-6000 (SAA039J)


Ooops !!! :lol: Note how the forum's page width limit has squeezed the 1024 pixels wide image to fit the maximum 850 pixels allowed. :o


But (as always) there is a workaround. ;)

The only part of the Flickr HTML coding you actually want, is this part I've outlined in red, between the "quotation marks":




i.e. this part: http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5059/5398229646_37aed3caa1_b.jpg

But if you drop it there - that's all you get - a link. Instead paste it into the 'Insert Image' pop-up (just as you would using Photobucket):






Like I said - Photobucket's a lot easier. ;)

February 9, 2012 at 2:15 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Somebody else fancy documenting how to use ImageShack photo hosting on this forum ?  Any volunteers ? :|


O.K. Well as nobody else volunteered, I'll have a stab at it. The problem is that I don't have an ImageShack account any more. :(


So I'm going to cheat a little bit. :P

February 9, 2012 at 4:48 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

The way I'm going to cheat, is by copying the ImageShack coding, instead from Manuel's recent post on Orologi & Passioni.

See: http://orologi.forumfree.it/?t=57560918&st=135

How you, as a user, actually extract that part alone, from ImageShack's lengthy coding, is for you to figure out for yourself. :/


The way you can use ImageShack on this forum is similar to the way I used part of Flickr's image coding in the previous post.

You just need to crop out the part of their code you actually need, beginning http ... ending jpg [outlined in red] - and copy it.




February 15, 2012 at 8:05 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

So the only part you actually need is the direct link to the image: http://img845.imageshack.us/img845/9250/20120127142103.jpg


But do not drop it here. Click on the 'Insert Image' icon arrowed below, and paste in the image code into the pop-up - like this:




Click the OK button, and ....




To quote 6309-7040: Seiko 7A28-7070 (acchiappato su segnalazione di Supermario). ;)
February 15, 2012 at 8:13 PM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Occasionally when you're (trying) to use Photobucket, you may be greeted by this 'exception' screen, as I was earlier this morning. :mad:




It's nothing that you were doing wrong, but a 'failure to communicate' at their end. :roll: So keep trying. ;)

June 19, 2012 at 7:44 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Problems with Photobucket continued through September and October 2012, when this banner was displayed on numerous occasions:




I suspect it was connected to background conversion work on the 'new look' Photobucket:



There's a reference to this in another thread in the Members' section: http://www.seiko7a38.com/apps/forums/topics/show/8095785

.... and a rather more specific 'problem' thread on the RLT watch forum: http://www.thewatchforum.co.uk/index.php?showtopic=78764


Like many other recent ill-conceived website re-designs, the new incarnation of Photobucket is obviously meant to cater for users of mobile hand-held devices, rather than traditional desktop / laptop PC users. I tried it - didn't like it and switched back to the old version.


December 2, 2012 at 4:04 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

But does the new version of Photobucket bring other problems with it ? 

New member Chris 'Prospex44' recently posted a couple of photos of his 7A38-702A.

Quote from his subsequent post: Agh! My pics seem to be a bit "stretched" for some reason?


His original image (uploaded to Photobucket at 1024 x 681) had not been 'stretched' but compressed to fit the 847 pixels page width:



Looking at Chris' problem in HTML, it appears to stem from the inclusion of a piece of extra coding: height="681" width="1024".

Here is the same (original sized) image with the additional coding removed - properly automatically re-sized by the forum software:




Was this due to a change of coding options in the 'New' Photobucket, or merely case of a newbie not having followed the instructions ?


December 2, 2012 at 4:21 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Prospex44
Member
Posts: 24

Paul, i think i definitely "followed the instructions" correctly.

I used the "Direct Link" for copying the photo link and dropped in into the inserts image box as normal.

Here is another image inserted, the exact same way.......


December 2, 2012 at 9:12 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Prospex44
Member
Posts: 24

Strange, this one seems to be ok?

December 2, 2012 at 9:13 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Yes, Chris. But if you check the size you uploaded it to Photobucket - that particular image is only 800 x 532 pixels - not 1024 x 681 like the ones you had problems with in your post yesterday. I have edited your original post in the 'newest incoming 7A' thread (and corrected your photo re-sizing problem there), but by copying your coding, I have replicated it above. Here's how it looks in HTML.




The earlier problem with your photos stemmed from the additional coding between < img and src - height="681" width="1024"

This is similar to the issue you can get with Flickr 'squeezing' images (if you don't select the correct coding) that I mentioned earlier.


December 2, 2012 at 9:19 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Prospex44
Member
Posts: 24

So, is it just like most other forums, in that you should re-size to 800 in Photobucket before posting the pics?

December 2, 2012 at 9:38 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

NO !! :o


Most of (if not all of us) I believe are uploading to Photobucket at the original size the photo was taken (some possibly at 1024 wide).

Unless you have a Photobucket Pro account, PB automatically reduces that to 1024 width x (proportional depth) - 681 in your case.

Up until now, the forum software has been succesfully 're-sizing' every 1024 pixel width PB image to suit the 847 pixels page width.


Edit: Chris. I've just read your PM reply. O.K. - so you're not using the new version of Photobucket. So it's a mystery to me, for now.

December 2, 2012 at 9:39 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Prospex44
Member
Posts: 24

I see, so it may be an issue with the forum software then?

Here is a full image which i just uploaded to PB, i haven't resized it at all.......

 

December 2, 2012 at 9:58 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

No, Chris. It looks like you somehow got it wrong at your first attempt - though for the life of me, I can't quite figure out how ! :P



It'll be interesting to see what happens (if anything) when we all no doubt eventually get forcibly migrated to the new version of PB. :roll:

December 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Prospex44
Member
Posts: 24

And another one - again not resized by me in PB at all.

 

 

 

December 2, 2012 at 10:01 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Prospex44
Member
Posts: 24

Mmm, yet this one seems to be stretched again?

It was uploaded the exact same way (both not resized) as the pic above?

December 2, 2012 at 10:03 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Chris. Stop b*ggering around for a minute and let me look at your coding. O.K. ? ;)


O.K. I've right clicked and saved those two photos you just uploaded, and both of them are 1024 x 681.

However there is a difference (specifically the one I expected to find) in the HTML coding of your two posts:




Here's your second photo uploaded again (by me), Chris:




This doesn't appear to be a problem anybody else is experiencing (as yet). So it must be something you are doing differently. Sorry.


December 2, 2012 at 10:05 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Prospex44
Member
Posts: 24

Paul,

Both of these pics were uploaded at the same time to PB. Both were not resized in any way, and both were put onto the forum in exactly the same way. Yet one seems to not appear correctly. For my part, both were uploaded in exactly the same way.

December 2, 2012 at 10:51 AM Flag Quote & Reply

Seiko7A38
Site Owner
Posts: 8886

Chris. I've just re-edited my previous post.

I have re-inserted your second photo using the normal PB coding without height="681" width="1024"

I don't know what it is (if anything) you are doing differently (when the image width gets compressed).

This thread was originally intended to be an instructional topic, rather than the fault-finding exercise which it has turned into today. 

I don't have an immediate simple answer to your problem and I suspect that I won't get any help from Webs (total lack of) Support.

May I suggest, if you see a recurrence of the problem, you take the following action. You have a 10 minute editing time out window:


1) Click on 'Edit' underneath your post. Click on the < > (HTML coding) arrows to the right of the insert Smileys icon.

2) Remove the offending height="681" width="1024" coding between < img and src (but leave a gap between them).

3) Submit your changes.


If you (or any one else encountering it) fail to manage to correct the problem, then flag your post and I'll sort it out for you. O.K. ? ;)

December 2, 2012 at 11:07 AM Flag Quote & Reply

You must login to post.