Album Test

[PhotosbyChuck]

I have created a private album for the purpose of holding the images I create for my articles/discussions on things like today's posts on contrast and saturation. I made the album private so that it doesn't clutter the "real" photo albums on the board, but I'd like to make sure this works as I think it does, so, please let me know if you see the image below?

I know I see it -- and I believe moderators can see it even though it's private. I'm hoping everyone can see it! (Since I'm just a "junior member" I cannot create a poll...but I posted here because I cannot post in the test forum for the same reason! Kinda strange I can start a new thread in a forum dedicated to polls, but I can't actually make it a poll!)



If everyone can see it, then I'll use this album to hold images for my threads. If some users cannot see it, then I'll need to make the album public.

Oh, one more favor...CLICK HERE and please let me know if you see the album called "Threads" in my list of albums? Again, I think moderators can see it, but hopefully normal members cannot. That keeps it out of the way.

[r_fredrick_smith]

I believe that only moderator's can create polls at the current time. That is the way it is on most forums, because otherwise you tend to get overloaded with polls and they lose their usefulness.

As for you thread idea, while it may work, will limit you very shortly because there is a limit to the number of photos total as well as in each album. If at any future, time you have to start deleting old photos from the album, then any tutorials or posts will lose much of their value as the photos go away. Its better to host such photos offline (on your own server space) if you're going to be using them for permanent additions to a thread. Its a good idea though to have a type of private album that could be used for such purposes that had a more liberal photo limit. Perhaps something for a future upgrade to ShotCritic.

For all: if you post shots from your albums in your posts, they should be shots that you don't plan to delete later, because then the posts will lose much of their message.

Cheers,
rfs

[RSStory]

I see the image and the album, but I am a moderator so I think that only tells you that yes a moderator can see them.

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by r_fredrick_smith

As for you thread idea, while it may work, will limit you very shortly because there is a limit to the number of photos total as well as in each album. If at any future, time you have to start deleting old photos from the album, then any tutorials or posts will lose much of their value as the photos go away. Its better to host such photos offline (on your own server space) if you're going to be using them for permanent additions to a thread. Its a good idea though to have a type of private album that could be used for such purposes that had a more liberal photo limit. Perhaps something for a future upgrade to ShotCritic.

I understand your point, but disagree for a few reasons...

I don't want to host a bunch of images on my server that were solely created to add value here. As we build value and traffic here increases, I'd rather that the traffic for things I create for SC stay on SC. It also ensures that if SC is up, the photos are up. No broken links due to the image host being down, changing policy on linking, etc. It's clean.

If I were running SC, I would prefer to have linked images local. It's a lot easier to control the content if the content resides on the server. Places like Photobucket have had problems as they upgrade and change their system. Not to mention the fact that an offsite image could be replaced by a pornographic one without any of SC's user control and SC would begin displaying it immediately. Replace an image in an old thread and how long would it be there before someone complained or a mod noticed. No one goes through old threads and the board would not flag such a change as a new post. Further, your cache may even prevent you from noticing the change. Want to put the credibility of the site in the hands of a free image host? I wouldn't.

As to the space issue, that's entirely under RG's control. If there are people like me that frequently post helpful content that he feels benefits the site at large, he can consider creating a user level that allows more space. Today a "Supporter" dontates money. Perhaps a "Contributor" donates time. No less valuable. Perhaps even moreso since it is the value added by people that post helpful critiques and articles that will drive supporters in the long run. Anyway, content only has so much life. 10MB of space at a maximum image size of 100k is 1,000 images. I can tell you right now, I'm not going to create 1,000 images for articles any time soon. If I created 10 per day (which is WAY too high, but makes the point), I would hit 10MB in 2.7 years. And that's assuming everything is 100k. Most of my images are less than half of that.

[r_fredrick_smith]

You raise some good points. But I was not talking about a free image host or server, but rather one that a person would own themselves. I've had my own server space for many years and have full control of that space. I also own the domains in question. The only way existing linked images could be replaced with others would be for someone to have access to the domain (having access to the server would not be the key, because it can be easily defeated just by changing the domain pointers).

But as I also suggested, it would be better to host the images on ShotCritic, if and when enough space is allowed for those posters who might qualify in some way. We are not talking about hard drive space in this case, since the limit is on a specific number of photos. I believe the current limit is 100.

Also there is the matter of time. I've done hundreds of these little mini post based tutorials on this and other forums over the years and have thousands of photos involved. By having them all on my central server I can mix and match the needed existing photos over a variety of forums. Also from a workflow standpoint it is easier to use personal hosting? Why? Because I work directly out of Photoshop and Snagit. I prepare an image, Screen capture with Snagit, and have Snagit send it right to my server. That interaction would not be possible with the shots hosted in an album. I've tried both ways and it takes many times longer to prepare an article or tutorial when hosting the photos directly on the forum site. I still like the idea of hosting directly on the forum site, but only if there was automation to meld it into the workflow.

As far as expense of maintaining ones own server, it is really minimal. I pay $10 a year for the domain name and $100 for the hosting (600gb and 6000gb bandwidth). I've been on the same two hosting services for over 5 years with nary a problem (the servers are on IPlanet in Dallas).

Anyway, its all sort of a moot point, since with a limit of 100 photos you will reach the limits quite quickly. That's why we need a contributor type album (like you suggest). That would work well for people who don't already have a highly organized workflow for this sort of thing.

Anyway, nice to chat about this and discuss the different ways in might go.

Cheers,
rfs

[PhotosbyChuck]

I too own my own domains and handle my own hosting. I actually own and administer the server hardware and software as well. Like you, I host quite a number of images on my server that were created for this or that and might be linked from multiple forums across the Internet. I do it for the same reasons -- like you say, it's easy. I can save a snapshot or edited photo to my webserver directly from inside PhotoShop.

You and I and probably a handful of others who host their own domains AND know a bit about it might continue to host their own images all or part of the time. But from the site standpoint, it would be faster and more secure. And ultimately more reliable. If your or I can no longer pay for our hosting, our images go poof...and SC starts showing a lot of red X's!

Anyway, as I read my post again I didn't like how it sounded as though I was asking for a special status. Those of you who are mods already post a lot of articles and such like I do. If image limits cause me a problem at some point it's not like the site will suffer for lack of posts from the rest of you!

[r_fredrick_smith]

RG is very flexible and I'm sure will relax limits for those who are strong contributors to the site and help it grow. So keep up the good work.
Cheers,
rfs

[soupman]

There is a lot of good points being made. I am now wondering if I am too enthusiastic with posting photos for C&C, etc. if I will run out of album space?

I'll worry about that when it happens.

[PhotosbyChuck]

Originally Posted by soupman

There is a lot of good points being made. I am now wondering if I am too enthusiastic with posting photos for C&C, etc. if I will run out of album space?

I'll worry about that when it happens.

I imagine RG will change the file count limit on the albums as he continues to develop the site. But at some point, we'll all have to manage our content. As a supporter you've got a ways to go before that becomes a worry tho.

[RSStory]

Originally Posted by PhotosbyChuck

Anyway, as I read my post again I didn't like how it sounded as though I was asking for a special status. Those of you who are mods already post a lot of articles and such like I do. If image limits cause me a problem at some point it's not like the site will suffer for lack of posts from the rest of you!

I find your posts to be very helpful. Even more so to those starting out in this journey and would therefore hope that you will NOT stop posting and doing tutorials and would whole heartedly support whatever RG could do to make sure that you have the needed space to keep it here on the site.

Scott