When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Can someone post the procedure to add photos to an ad? I cannot seem to post pictures , and the one I did get done was quite the accident and I cannot figure it out .
You're wrong. (1) The updated photo icon has the sun on the right-hand side; (2) The current updated image has no Fonts; (3) No ability to change Sizes; (4) No availability to change color; (5) The link icon is different, etc., etc. - not to mention (again) the updated image is the current image and not the same as the previously posted image.
You're wrong. (1) The updated photo icon has the sun on the right-hand side; (2) The current updated image has no Fonts; (3) No ability to change Sizes; (4) No availability to change color; (5) The link icon is different, etc., etc. - not to mention (again) the updated image is the current image and not the same as the previously posted image.
The image posted by Joe P IS correct. Here's a screen shot I took just now. The sun is on the left side of the post-photo icon. You can't change font size, but you can change color. You can left, center, or right justify, the link icon has always looked like that as far as I can remember, etc.
Yeah, I mis-typed right-hand instead of left-hand. He and yourself are both incorrect. The picture you posted is the EXACT SAME IMAGE as the image I posted. The image contained on Post #2 @ https://classicoldsmobile.com/forums...-pictures.html is not the current updated image.
I'm trying to provide end-users with the most updated and correct image they will view. The orientation of the icons and availability of active elements is entirely different.
Yes, there is now the availability of strike-through and color option. Those two simple active element options were not available when I joined the site in July I can attest that as fact. Those are recently enabled active-elements.
I think no matter how you do it if the actual picture size in mbs is smaller like kbs you'll have better luck. I think many times when people says their efforts are hit or miss I think it's related to size and connection speed.
for images that don't require great detail I resize to 1024x768. Or 800x600. That typically will take a 4 mb image to ~300kbs.
end result is 80% of the time it works every time!
I think no matter how you do it if the actual picture size in mbs is smaller like kbs you'll have better luck. I think many times when people says their efforts are hit or miss I think it's related to size and connection speed.
for images that don't require great detail I resize to 1024x768. Or 800x600. That typically will take a 4 mb image to ~300kbs.
end result is 80% of the time it works every time!
In 'general', you're correct Retro; yet, not completely. I believe I found the size limit to the Uploaded images for the CO site - I believe it to be 5MB - I tested this under a couple of scenarios. Most websites will tell you straight away the size limitation - I have yet to find anywhere on the CO website where it states (unless it's too late) the size limitation of uploads (of any type). Anyways, when you think of an image, you can think of the image you took in terms of 'dimensional awareness'. That is to say, when you take a picture of a flat piece of paper (e.g. or a desktop, or a floor, something 'flat'), that picture lacks dimensional awareness; as compared to, if you were take a picture of the top of your Oldsmobile engine which would contain far more dimensional awareness i.e. there is a SIGNIFICANT more amount of 'depth' to the top of your engine than the flat piece of paper. So, it shouldn't be surprising the engine would probably save to ~3MB whereas the image of the piece of paper would save to ~100kB (all things remaining equal except what's in the picture - depth and dimensional awareness). Much more depth in anything 3D - so, much more space (file size) to save it.
When it comes time to 'render' the image (make it viewable to an end-user) - much has to do with the rendering software; and, here is where many websites differ (but, also PCs, cameras, phones, video projectors, etc.) - but, let's stick to websites. Does the website support .png, .jpg, .jpeg, .tiff, .bmp, .bat, etc. And, each type of image is rendered differently because the back-end website software operates specifically to render each type of format differently. Add to this, the compression routines you apply to images is not going to compress each type of image file format the same as any other image file format. So, there are a couple/several scenarios involved when it comes time to rendering images. I promise not to go onto a further expose here.
One final coup de grāce. This is a free website, it does some things very, very well - in particular, the extraordinarily rapid indexing of topics, threads, and posts on very fast back-end servers. There are some things which are not enabled on the back-end of this website which could further enhance end-user experience, but I'm not even going there. Let me just say this. Extraordinarily top-end social media websites (and many websites which contain hundreds of thousands>hundreds of millions>hundreds of billions) images run image compression software on the back-end which the end-user never sees. There are no size limits to the image upload and for some websites, there is no size limit to video uploads. Those are NOT free websites. But, the compression routine runs on the back-end so end-users don't even need be concerned.
.JPEG and .JPG are the two most highly recommended image file formats for uploading and rendering onto (in particular free) websites.
Last edited by Vintage Chief; Jan 26, 2019 at 06:08 PM.
