creating a photo website

Message Bookmarked
Bookmark Removed
Not all messages are displayed: show all messages (88 of them)

eschew flash

Grimy Little Pimp (Jimmy The Mod Awaits The Return Of His Beloved), Monday, 7 May 2012 18:45 (seven years ago) link

one month passes...

i know y'all probably figured this out but man don't use photobucket, fuck a retroactive-automatic-photo-resize, it fucked my whole photo-log.

also on a lighter note i figured out my rolling/archival photolog dilemma & built it - it has now & a then sections - + i am going to start it for real in September (though i can't imagine having the discipline/$$ to develop in chronological order, or to sort phots into days rather than batches).

blossom smulch (schlump), Saturday, 16 June 2012 19:21 (seven years ago) link

i guess this would be more of a question if i asked for domain-hosting advice that factored in the photocentric concern of needing a bunch of space for images.

blossom smulch (schlump), Saturday, 16 June 2012 19:22 (seven years ago) link

also should note that i am in fact referring to imageshack not photobucket, but using 'photobucket' because it is a more amusing name which is ingrained in my head

blossom smulch (schlump), Saturday, 16 June 2012 19:24 (seven years ago) link

two months pass...

hey dayo

how much is nearlyfreespeech.net costing you per mo (roughly), i'm trying to decide what to do about ~creating a photo website~

catbus otm (gbx), Thursday, 16 August 2012 19:47 (seven years ago) link

pennies per day? I think it's gonna cost me like $10-20 a year to host it

jack chick-fil-A (dayo), Friday, 24 August 2012 22:51 (seven years ago) link

it's annoying because you need to start a daily mysQL process (at least if you use indexhibit) that will cost money per day

if you don't need to start a daily mysql process then it's just bandwith used which is pennies I think

jack chick-fil-A (dayo), Friday, 24 August 2012 22:52 (seven years ago) link

i have been trying to work this stuff out, & was intending on using this place. but i am only mentioning this in case you want webhosting-forum-enthusiast-endorsed traditional hosting sites, NFS looks great.

very sexual album (schlump), Friday, 24 August 2012 23:27 (seven years ago) link

eleven months pass...

hey so here is a photography website question,

photo filesizes: do they matter

i think i worry that resolution is now a delicate thing, because people use both cellphones & also retina monitors, & i wondered about including images as large files that resize to a browser window. is it terrible to download an enormous image when you load a page? why is this terrible? how big is too big? how should we deal with this?

szarkasm (schlump), Monday, 19 August 2013 01:23 (six years ago) link

I'd suggest choosing a medium resolution size, and uploading images at the same size at which they'll be displayed. not only would the filesizes be too large if you upload full resolution, but you would have no control over how the browser will scale the image.

chinavision!, Monday, 19 August 2013 13:22 (six years ago) link

yeah, that sounds sensible & about right. ty. it just feels frustrating, because at the moment it would be really good to have some flexibility. when you upload things to picasa (which i think is a sorta facade for google drive), the url generated includes a number which you can alter to automatically generate a new copy of the JPG; so if you change it to s200 you get a small-ish image, it's like 120kb, if it's s800 it's a reasonable document size & it's 400kb, & so on. i put things online & played around with like, too large file sizes - so say 5mb for very large images - & at the same time that they are, kinda obviously, too large, i feel like they mean that i can look at things on a really big imac monitor at school & they look good & i can see the grain, but the images are resizing (albeit slowly) if i look at them on a desktop. i've been playing with using css to set image widths or heights to a percentage, rather than a pixel #, & i like what it means for viewing a website. if it wasn't for knowing that anyone looking at a site on a cellphone would be just blitzing their dataplan i would probably settle for a slow-loading website right now. i mean it's photos, people can wait.

szarkasm (schlump), Monday, 19 August 2013 15:25 (six years ago) link

tbh I tend to dislike super large images on photo websites. I feel like you can't really 'see the photograph' in those cases, but just see a million little details or the grain.

chinavision!, Monday, 19 August 2013 20:31 (six years ago) link


You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.