Welcome to Fractal Forums

Storage space for images is limited because of bandwidth. If you want to post an image you can use the 'insert image' button when you compose a message. A very convenient way to upload images to a third party server (to link to) is http://tinypic.com/ (http://tinypic.com/).  You could probably do the same on Flickr, but this is easier.
It takes 30 seconds. Hit browse, select the file and hit upload. Then copy the img tag it will return and paste it into a new thread. No registration required and totally free.

PLEASE post links to images using the 'insert image' button.  If you just post a [ url ] link then people cannot see your image right away and traffic is diverted off this site - don't do it!  ;)  Off-site [ url ] links should be posted in the 'fractal links' board.

This topic should be stickied

Also of use

If you use Imageshack and Firefox and want to upload all you'r fractal stuff all at once
http://pimpsofpain.com/imagebot.html

Please note, Try PNG as well as JPEG if you'r image is gona be big, often PNG will be smaller than JPEG if you'r fractal has a low colour depth (which fractals often do).

TinyPic is great!

I've uploaded three 3D animations and have the various codes for them. I tried putting them in my Biocursion Competition Entries post, by placing both the "embed link" and the "URL link" within the insert image tags, but neither option worked.

Can I post the TinyPic animations embeded in my posts?
If so, what is the correct way to do it?

Thanks
Don

I've been posting my images as urls with an embedded thumbnail image within the [ url ] tags, e.g:

[ url = http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic.jpg ] [ img ] http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic_THUMB.jpg [ /img ] [ /url ]

This displays a thumbnail pic, and you click on the thumb to follow the link and bring up the large version (the thumbnail image is itself a hyperlink).

However I've noticed that my posts have been edited to change this to a thumb with a url below, which I guess is a hint that I should be doing it like this:

[ url = http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic.jpg ] [ img ] http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic_THUMB.jpg [ /img ] [ /url ]
[ url = http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic.jpg ] http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic.jpg [ /url ]

or this:

[ img ] http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic_THUMB.jpg [ /img ]
[ url = http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic.jpg ] http://www.somesite.com/coolfractalpic.jpg [ /url ]

I assume there is a good reason for this, so I'll start doing it the new way. I'm posting this here as a reference for others.

Cheers,
Chris

I noticed that too, but saw no "edited by" line at the bottom, so assumed it was part of how this forum parses links.

Note that you merely have to type a url for a text link, the [ url] tags are not needed!  They are  automatically converted to links.

I just started including text in my links below the image like thus:



I like having it both ways!

If there is a preferred format for the site though, I can "unlink" the images.  It's just so intuitive to click an image that I couldn't believe it was anything but a quirk of the software!

Sorry if it has caused some concerns with some folks, regarding what was originally posted and what it got edited to afterwards.  But I have noticed that on several occasions when the URL tags are wrapped around the IMG tags (and it's actual web location), then the image does not become viewable.  Only a blank line or two is there where an image should have appeared.

I have checked this out with more than one computer (using different ISP connections, different browsers, and with different OS versions).  I have no explanation as to why this occurs, but the fix seems to be in making them separate items.  And this is what I have done when I view a posting that should be showing an image and nothing is there.

Thanks for the enlightenment!

I'll use that format in the future.

Sounds like another bug in 1.1RC3!

Has anyone searched the SMF Forums for information about this issue?

Have not yet been able to take the time and do further researching into this matter, other than noticing the problem is irregular and happens with more than one computer.
 

How different are your different ISPs? They probably both link through the same "upstream" ISP - the Internet is one weird fractal...

additional topical thoughts:
Why not rule out images as attachments altogether? It would be much simpler to do this and never have to worry about it again.

I carp again - posting of multiple huge images is fine on one's own website, if one does not care how many people are driven away. It is fine to say "Oh, well, you should get a faster connection and a newer computer" - but those choices are not always open to everyone. A little restraint, self-control, and consideration for others would do no harm. The traditional use of thumbnail images in online galleries has not been made obsolete by modern highspeed connections, it also serves the purpose of preventing a page from hanging down to the depths of Hades. Scrolling is tedious; it can be much more pleasant to look over a short span of smaller images and choose for oneself which ones to view full-size.

Incidentally, it is not only the bandwidth of a website that counts. Some people may be more limited than others - by their ISP - in the amount that they can download. In the long run, everyone pays, just like the higher taxes that pay for the wider highways for the fast, fat vehicles.
...rant, rant...  :P  :P  ;D

...hey, one of the smileys isn't working - came out as a colon and a plain smile.

Considerably different.  One is AT&T's Worldnet, which I have been using for about 12 years.  And the other one is another fairly major player that has been around just about as long.  But then again, the previous problem here (which happened after the Forum moved to this hosting service) was not a problem with either of my two ISPs, and finally got resolved with a change to the way this Forum functioned.

Face it, the bugs are within SMF !!


That was not the problem in this most recent case, it was the embedded tags within other tags.

I see no problem with attachments, just as long as they are not large and they are only used when no other option is available.  Most people are using links and managing to get their files shown without difficulties.  Unless it becomes a real issue, we could just continue on with the current settings and rules.
 

I found a topic about this, with a workaround, in the smf forum:

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=122064.0

Apparently it has to do with a bug in the way the forum handles the http protocol.

They sucessfully reproduced the problem, and found the HTTP works always, but http does not!

https works well too, even if not hosted on a secure server page.

There is much more info at that link.

The saga is ongoing, but worth watching.

I hope it helps.

Peace.

Thanks for the info.  Very curious problem.  Will give it a try on some of the disappearing lines.

Strange situation - with forums (or many types of software).  If you pick something very popular, it probably has more support (more interest) so fixes come more readily.  However, it's more likely to be hacked (think Microsoft or phpBB).  Pick something obscure and you might not get the support (think Snitz forums or even some flavours of Linux - and I don't want to start a flamewar over Linux/Microsoft, but let's face it Microsoft software has a heck of a lot more support than Linux, for example for me a recent installation of Ubuntu Linux crashed after one, yes one day, irretrievably, anyway I digress).

SMF Forums seemed fairly well supported but I didn't see any of the 'my forum is being hacked to death' messages like I did for phpBB.  So SMF it was.

I will try to upgrade to 1.1 once the competition is judged (come on Biocursion!!).