Photos Not Accepted.....

Mully · #1 (**permalink**) 15-10-2006, 08:51 AM

Sorry for having to do this , but I have sent an email, but had no response. I just want to know what it is I am doing wrong with my pics. Most of the recent ones that I have submitted have not made it to the gallery. Could someone pm me to let me know. Thanks.

nightshade · #2 (**permalink**) 15-10-2006, 08:56 AM

Hi Mully I still cannot post images to this site do not know why,just do not give up

Mully · #3 (**permalink**) 15-10-2006, 09:01 AM

Sorry for the mix up Nightshade. I can post images ok, and have done so in the past. Its these new board rules about quality and photo sizes etc. All photos are now screened and selected. I just want to know why my pics were ok before but not now.

Oy · #4 (**permalink**) 15-10-2006, 03:59 PM

Hi Mully

If you send me a few samples I'll give you my honest opinion.

You can either uplaod them to an image hosting site like Free Image and Video Hosting - Photo Image Hosting Site : Photobucket.com and PM the links to me - or I can give you my email address by PM for you to send them to.

speckled wood · #5 (**permalink**) 15-10-2006, 05:42 PM

I do have problems from time to time but I suspect that it is sometimes related to me not allowing enough time for the pictures to upload ..... I wonder if others do this?

GuyF · #6 (**permalink**) 15-10-2006, 06:59 PM

Hi,
It may be because of the size of the picture. I had to shrink a picture down to 800x600 pixels and it wasn't accepted. When I sent the same picture at 1000x750 pixels it was accepted.

SouthernSkye · #7 (**permalink**) 24-10-2006, 06:47 PM

Good evening,
I am also curious about this as I posted 2 x jpg's in the Forum gallery and these went straight on, as I had read they would. So, encouraged by this, I tried to post one into the Scotland gallery. This failed as it was too large (a message displayed indicating this was so, however it did not ellaborate as to what size is too large). Not wanting to give up so soon I chose another picture (possibly two, grey hairs=memory issues!) of Red Point (Gairloch way) and that was accepted. This I did on Thurday 19th or, possibly, Friday 20th Oct. To date nothing has appeared.
Two questions cross my mind:
1 - As this is my first photo how do I know if I have done something wrong if there is someone judging my pictures to decide if they are "good enough"?
2 - What criteria is used to select if the photo is good enough?
In the meantime I shall go and read the gallery forum again and see if I can get an insight into photo submission.
BR
SS

Boddie · #8 (**permalink**) 24-10-2006, 07:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernSkye

Good evening,
I am also curious about this as I posted 2 x jpg's in the Forum gallery and these went straight on, as I had read they would. So, encouraged by this, I tried to post one into the Scotland gallery. This failed as it was too large (a message displayed indicating this was so, however it did not ellaborate as to what size is too large). Not wanting to give up so soon I chose another picture (possibly two, grey hairs=memory issues!) of Red Point (Gairloch way) and that was accepted. This I did on Thurday 19th or, possibly, Friday 20th Oct. To date nothing has appeared.
Two questions cross my mind:
1 - As this is my first photo how do I know if I have done something wrong if there is someone judging my pictures to decide if they are "good enough"?
2 - What criteria is used to select if the photo is good enough?
In the meantime I shall go and read the gallery forum again and see if I can get an insight into photo submission.
BR
SS

This one uploaded OK on the 20th

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...age-21197.html

matt_xyz · #9 (**permalink**) 24-10-2006, 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Boddie

This one uploaded OK on the 20th

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...age-21197.html

Hi Southernskye,

the above image should have been uploaded to the Scotland gallery rather than Forum Images, so I've now moved it. It's a lovely image by the way.

The following links provide more info on the gallery requirements;

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/gallery_faqs

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/gu...loading_images

I don't know why your images haven't appeared, I can only suggest that you try again if you feel that they meet all of the above guidelines.

Matt

SouthernSkye · #10 (**permalink**) 24-10-2006, 07:51 PM

Thanks Matt,
Yes the Loch Garry pic was in a reply to another pic in the Scotland Gallery. Confirming a pic of another chaps was, indeed, Loch Garry. I posted mine so it could be seen from another angle.

So, it must have been the 21st that I Uploaded the other image direct to the Scotland Gallery, it was, I recall, a day after I put the Loch Garry pic in the Forum Gallery.
That other scene is the beach at Red Point (title=Red Point).That is the one I have not seen in the gallery yet. I will ensure I check the FAQs etc. (thanks for the links) before I try another U.L to the moderated galleries.

Thanks for the feedback on Loch Garry. It is a favourite pic of mine but it loses a lot of it's 'pazzaz'(!) during conversion from 35mm to digital. The original has really vivid colours. But glad you like it. I hope to add more of my ScotShots in the near future.
If you do find my Red Point pic let me know ;-)
rgds
SS

matt_xyz · #11 (**permalink**) 24-10-2006, 07:53 PM

we definitely only have 2 images of yours in the gallery, I'm afraid. Here's the link to your images;

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/ga...searchid=28963

Matt

SouthernSkye · #12 (**permalink**) 24-10-2006, 08:17 PM

Hi Matt,
Looks like size does matter!
The Loch Garry jpg I must have reduced in the past as it is only around 240KB. The other one I tried is around 1.85MB.

Having checked back, the 2 x JPG I tried to UL on the 21st:
The first was, ahem, 3.81MB. For this I got the file too large message.
The second was a paltry(!) 1.85MB. This UL'd ok, or so I thought.
I wonder what the cut-off point is for a rejection message of "file too large"?

I'll take more care in future and check things through/resize images etc. Thanks for the help/patience. I'll resize a few at the weekend and try again.
Cordially
SS

matt_xyz · #13 (**permalink**) 24-10-2006, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SouthernSkye

Hi Matt,
Looks like size does matter!
The Loch Garry jpg I must have reduced in the past as it is only around 240KB. The other one I tried is around 1.85MB.

Having checked back, the 2 x JPG I tried to UL on the 21st:
The first was, ahem, 3.81MB. For this I got the file too large message.
The second was a paltry(!) 1.85MB. This UL'd ok, or so I thought.
I wonder what the cut-off point is for a rejection message of "file too large"?

I'll take more care in future and check things through/resize images etc. Thanks for the help/patience. I'll resize a few at the weekend and try again.
Cordially
SS

I think we've solved this mystery. Files have to be less than 500kb and ideally less than 300kb.

Matt

SouthernSkye · #14 (**permalink**) 25-10-2006, 07:21 AM

Aye, serves me right for diving in instead of reading up first!
Thanks again
SS

Paul mabbott · #15 (**permalink**) 26-10-2006, 05:05 PM

I've just up-loaded a picture which, I now realise, will be rejected because it is too small. Unfortunately, most of the pictures I take are of smallish insects, so I have smaller images ... I could go back to the original and leave in more background but why? Far better to get a clear view of the animal than of a lot of foliage or petri dish!
I also find the instructions about size somewhat confusing - wouldn't it be better to to specify file size rather than dimensions?

wildone · #16 (**permalink**) 26-10-2006, 05:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

I've just up-loaded a picture which, I now realise, will be rejected because it is too small.
I also find the instructions about size somewhat confusing - wouldn't it be better to to specify file size rather than dimensions?

Both dimention and file size are specified. Minimum dimentions are 800 x 600 pixels maximum 1280 x 1024 pixels and file size no greater than 500kb but preferably less than 250kb.

Paul mabbott · #17 (**permalink**) 26-10-2006, 06:16 PM

No, it doesn't have a mention of file size on the load screen, or elsewhere that I can see:
"Please ensure that your images have a minimum resolution of 800x600 pixels, and a maximum of 1280x1024"

But, even with this new information, doesn't it mean, sometimes, that to get a photo bigger than the minimum 800x600 then you would have to reduce the resolution? Surely better to have a small high res picture (of an insect) than a larger low res one?

It's the 800-600 that bothers me most. Say, for example, you want a good *high res* pic of a millipede, then you might be better off with 1200x200 picture?

Quote:

Originally Posted by wildone

Both dimention and file size are specified. Minimum dimentions are 800 x 600 pixels maximum 1280 x 1024 pixels and file size no greater than 500kb but preferably less than 250kb.

eeyore · #18 (**permalink**) 01-11-2006, 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

I've just up-loaded a picture which, I now realise, will be rejected because it is too small. Unfortunately, most of the pictures I take are of smallish insects, so I have smaller images ... I could go back to the original and leave in more background but why?

surely it would be preferable to have the insect bigger in the frame - that is if the insect is too small to photograph effectively with your gear you need a way of photographing it larger - either more extension tubes , a higher power macro lens , or a digi scoping adaptor used on a microscope.

file size wise I generally resize my images to 600 pix on the narrower dimension then save the file at ciompression ratio 7 in photoshop which produces a file under 300kb

Paul mabbott · #19 (**permalink**) 01-11-2006, 04:06 PM

Obviously, but I don't!
I think that there are two types of people on this forum: photographers with an interest in nature and naturalists who take photographs! I'm the latter: I'm out there to observe, count, iedntify insects and sometimes take photos for records or to distribute. I don't want to go around with masses of hardware and, anyway, probably can't afford it ... he says, passing a hat ...
Anyway, that's beside the point, the photographs are perfectly adequate for identification but - for my own purposes - I crop them to get rid of superfluous background only to find that they may be too small to load on to WAB. I can go back and fiddle around to get them in the right dimensions but life is short ....
Cheers, Paul M

Quote:

Originally Posted by eeyore

surely it would be preferable to have the insect bigger in the frame - that is if the insect is too small to photograph effectively with your gear you need a way of photographing it larger - either more extension tubes , a higher power macro lens , or a digi scoping adaptor used on a microscope.
file size wise I generally resize my images to 600 pix on the narrower dimension then save the file at ciompression ratio 7 in photoshop which produces a file under 300kb

eeyore · #20 (**permalink**) 01-11-2006, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

Obviously, but I don't!
I think that there are two types of people on this forum: photographers with an interest in nature and naturalists who take photographs! I'm the latter: I'm out there to observe, count, iedntify insects and sometimes take photos for records or to distribute. I don't want to go around with masses of hardware and, anyway, probably can't afford it ... he says, passing a hat ...
Anyway, that's beside the point, the photographs are perfectly adequate for identification but - for my own purposes - I crop them to get rid of superfluous background only to find that they may be too small to load on to WAB. I can go back and fiddle around to get them in the right dimensions but life is short ....
Cheers, Paul M

I have no problem with you photographing and cropping however you like, as I also do (I would caracterise myself as both a photographer and a naturalist) but Stu has set the posting sizes as he has for a reason and I respect and accept his judgement as site administrator, and accept that if I want my photos to be posted here then I like everybody else have to abide by the gallery guidelines and rules..

It seems to me also that we have two types of people here , those that accept the way the site is set up and work with it , and those that complain about it

speckled wood · #21 (**permalink**) 01-11-2006, 04:27 PM

The only alteration I would make is to allow pixel sizes down to 640 x 480, in a lot of cases that size would be adequate ..... doubtless there may be a technical reason why this can't be done.

wildone · #22 (**permalink**) 01-11-2006, 04:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul mabbott

No, it doesn't have a mention of file size on the load screen, or elsewhere that I can see:
"Please ensure that your images have a minimum resolution of 800x600 pixels, and a maximum of 1280x1024"

But, even with this new information, doesn't it mean, sometimes, that to get a photo bigger than the minimum 800x600 then you would have to reduce the resolution? Surely better to have a small high res picture (of an insect) than a larger low res one?

It's the 800-600 that bothers me most. Say, for example, you want a good *high res* pic of a millipede, then you might be better off with 1200x200 picture?

Paul, perhaps you might like to read this

http://www.wildaboutbritain.co.uk/fo...s-gallery.html

Note particularly the paragraphs on Image Size and on File Compression.

If you look in the Insect and Spider galleries I am sure you will find plenty of examples of small creatures which have been uploaded to guideline sizes. Not all of these have been taken with the most expensive equipement, but still show that it is possible to adhere to the guidelines.

Fritillary · #23 (**permalink**) 01-11-2006, 04:52 PM

Hello
I had the same problem as well. I tried to post photos twice but it is said they are too big. However they are not high resolution, like an insect zoom, it is just a landscape or a tree.

wildone · #24 (**permalink**) 01-11-2006, 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fritillary

Hello
I had the same problem as well. I tried to post photos twice but it is said they are too big. However they are not high resolution, like an insect zoom, it is just a landscape or a tree.

Did you make sure your images measured less than 1280 x 1024 pixels. They should be somewhere between that and 800 x 600 pixels.