Embedding Images in forum posts

[FBz]

txt/pic/txt/pic… posting

Original post used for this example:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6079.msg45423.html#msg45423

There are other ways to approach this
- but this works pretty well once you get the hang of it.

Usually begin with a body of text pre-selected for copy / paste, as seen here.
Including some placement keystrokes to define where images will eventually be.
(Note blue dots.)



It also helps to have your images cropped & prepped for insertion from your desktop.
In this case, the three images shown above. *Assuming that everyone knows how to
“Attach” images in posts - where image files / attachments only appear at the bottom
of those posts.



After previewing text and attaching image files, click “Post” and up goes your post with attached,
clickable image preview icons appearing at the bottom.

This is where it gets a bit tricky.

Now create a new, blank document (SimpleText, TextEdit, etc.) of some sort on your desktop.
That’s where you’ll be pasting image addresses… in this next step.

At the bottom of your post you’ll see the image preview icons.
Click the first image and it enlarges to full size view.

THEN hold down the control & option keys and click the enlarged image.
You should then see the following:



After selecting “Copy Image Location”… THEN paste that address into your blank document.
Continue this same process for each image until you’ve them all, hopefully in sequence.
There’s a lot of clicking from the browser to the document and back & forth…
but you should eventually end up with something like this:





NEXT - you’ll select the Modify option of your post
(upper right corner).


You’ll then see a window much like the “Start new topic” window.
Additional text editing & image placement (within text area) is now possible.



Using the Image Location addresses that you pasted into that blank document…

*Remember the little marker keystrokes (with blue dots) above, where you want images to be?

  (1). Place your cursor next to that first marker “>” and delete it. Now click on this icon (insertion point).





Easy, right? No problemo!

AND here’s a previous image attempting to explain some of this process.
(Even more convoluted and with way too many colored arrows.)



Again, to view final post created in this manner:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php/topic,6079.msg45423.html#msg45423

[aBc]

See the above post...
Reference the following:

https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=835.0
https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.0

...pertaining to image sizes and embedded images within posts.

Since the recent transition / upgrade, it seems that the Insert Image button under Modify (message) no longer auto inserts the (bracketed) img /img as it did previously for manually embedding image sizes.

Now instead of using that button and manually inserting and defining viewing width in that manner... NOW manually inserting size parameters text strings works to define onscreen viewing of larger files (at a smaller size) for older browsers without using that Insert Image button.

Here’s an example using a 900 pixel width file embedded with two different display widths, defined in two different strings. (See: https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976)



Again, refer to: https://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=5364.msg54976#msg54976


It was previously recommended that embedded images be limited to or defined as 300 pixels (keeping in mind limitations of older browsers / smaller screens). For the last few years I’ve been using 600 pixel width embeds instead as base. So the question here is... for those of you using older browsers, is 600 pixels too much?

Who cares? Well, for those that wish to embed larger, much higher detailed images... and for those with larger screens and newer browsers... an original 1200 pixel width image displays very well on a 20” monitor and is much easier to view smaller details via a “click” on that smaller defined, 300 or 600 pixel width embedded image.

So, 300 pixels or 600 pixels for “clickable” embedded images - from originals up to 900 or 1200 pixels wide?





*And why are these guidelines now under the Off Topic heading?

P.S. Original image used here and on reference page, courtesy of @gert79.
 

[Knezzen]

Because it was in the “social posts” section that was renamed to “off topic”, good sir .
I will move it to somewhere better.

[IIO]

i´d vote for 300.

600 is already too big when inside a quote on an average 1440 laptop (new theme), and imho to close at the size of the most originals.

[aBc]

Thanks Knez.

And grrrr.... IIO. I almost never think about laptops.

How about 400? Still too big under the “old” theme? (Currently away from my machines to test this.)

The concern here is basically about those who attach much larger images (those that require scrolling around to see parts of the total, never ever seeing the entire image at one time). AND while those HUGE images are almost never embedded, now there’s the possible option to consider of either embedding them at 300-400 pixel widths (and possibly prompting the huge originals downloaded to view them at a reduced size on those machines).

OR the additional work of downloading and downsizing the “base” originals to 600, 900, 1200 or even 1400 pixel widths... and then reposting them and embedding those reduced files at the smaller 3-400 defined pixel width size.

Making them “clickable” for those capable of viewing them at a larger (yet still reduced) size.

Any other fine suggestions on how to handle 4000 x 3000 pixel image file sizes without troubling the laptop jockeys too much?

AND also, now... are larger images best viewed under ye olde olden theme?

[IIO]

i understand how it can be useful that people do not have to add pictures "twice" by first attaching them and then (in a second attempt to edit the post) link it using img tags, as this always was a mess.

many posts here ended up with attachments-only for that reason, so that the reader of the site later had the option to choose between either a 8k mobile phone image or a 120x120 mini preview - but no option to look at the image in a useful size.

however, a quote at x600 does not fit on monitor of x1600 with a relatively normal setup (firefox windows at 133% zoom) so that you have to scroll already.

in a normal post is fine though. so i guess maybe i should only talk about quotes and not about preview size. image size of 600 in normal posts is fine!

[ssp3]

The good thing about the "thumbnails only" posts is that non-registered users can not see them, inviting people to subscribe, if they want to learn more. Embedded images can be seen by anyone.

[aBc]

Embedded images can be seen by anyone.

Not true in this particular "embedded" case @ssp3.

And now, the difference between the "old" (left) and the "new" (right).
Note the loss of the complete 600 width image displayed on the right.

*Again, not on my regular workstation and using Graphic Converter
  instead of my customary Photoshop. Otherwise I could accurately
  assess the measurable loss of image via the new 2.0 layout.

[ssp3]

Indeed.. But I am certain I saw embedded images when I checked the site from a different machine without logging in a month or so ago. And no, I wasn't under influence of illegal substances.

[IIO]

And no, I wasn't under influence of illegal substances.

aha, so that´s why i you can exactly remember that day and time after all these months.
 
 
i just noticed that there is something wrong with the new theme anyway, the sidebar with the user avatars is almost twice as broad as it should be (moz win10)

when i think about it we should... no wait, it seems more safe to formulate it as question: is it wrong to suggest that the pictures should simply be of the same size than the surrounding container?

i mean the width of the post text is fixed, which i appreciate.

[ssp3]

when i think about it we should... no wait, it seems more safe to formulate it as question: is it wrong to suggest that the pictures should simply be of the same size than the surrounding container?

Or at least of the same width, if I may add.