Print

[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.

[aBc]

Currently… within the confines of the new Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 default theme - images posted of 540 pixels wide (or less) can be viewed without scrolling. Any larger? Go scroll.

For instance, this recently posted original image from DieHard measures 980 pixels in width. *Downsized here to fit within the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 limit of 540 pixels AND alongside (in comparison) to what can actually be viewed before scrolling of the image under the new 2.0 default theme (if left at the original 980 pixels).



Now some may never see a need for any image larger that 540 pixels (7.5 inches wide). Yet there are instances where occasionally, larger images with greater detail are preferred… here’s one example:



A large original (downsized on the left to fit the 2.0 format) juxtaposed with “where the scrolling begins” for that same downsized image (on the right) under the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme default.

And here’s a portion cropped 540 x 540 pixel segment of the original image (under the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 default limitations) - to illustrate the extent of detail lost from such size reductions / viewing restrictions.



Where’s R358 or R707?

Again, some may maintain that it is rare that any image ever need to exceed that 540 pixel width limitation - or that some “limited” scrolling might be just fine. However, there are  instances where larger images are extremely useful. And for those instances… you can easily change your Theme back to “Blu” to view them.

Like this one:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=6875.0;attach=12820;image

Copy / paste (or click on) the above URL address into your browser’s window to hopefully view the entire original image. Then depending upon your machine (and browser of course) you might be able to see much more of the intricate details of the G4 Mac mini mobo. (And also realize that R707 is not in the above cropped 540 pixel segment.) And then afterwards… IF you change your default theme to Blu… from Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0.




So… Recommended Image Sizes?

For Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme? Up to 540 pixels (7.5 inches) wide - before the need for any scrolling.

And for the “Blu” theme? Well I haven’t determined exact size restriction limits yet… but the original Mac mini image above is 1296 pixels wide and I can view it entirely under Blu, sans scrolling.

And once more… you can choose to restrict (or define) the display width of your images as explained previously:
http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.msg54995#msg54995
simply by pre-defining width parameters like:



Now… just for fun, below.
(Can’t view it all without scrolling?)
Better GO Blu. 😁






I understand… not everyone visits the Forum with newer, more capable machines… better suited to negotiate the current requirements necessary for “modern” web browsing. And “we” may actually garner more “traffic” to the site and gain new members to this community with the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme. That’s good.

But there is an option. And for those of us that do not connect our OS 9 based machines to the internet and instead, use them primarily as standalone workstations for a variety of specific productive tasks. (While using the newer “supporting” machines and browsers to upload / download files and view websites, etc.) It’s a pragmatic workaround. And that’s a good thing too. “We” still currently have a choice. It’s Blu.

Over the last eight years I have posted innumerable, large images that can be simply a nightmare to scroll through and view with the Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme and that is why it’s absolutely wonderful that “we” still have the option of using the Original forum theme (now termed “Blu”).

From here forward, I will now attempt to size most new images of mine, at or under the 540 pixel width size. Not all will be 540 pixels, some may be much larger. But so it goes, ehh? I shall try.

And for those of you that can handle the Original theme “Blu” (and larger images)… come on over and join the “Blu Crew.”

P.S. Would someone kindly merge this post with the previous thread:  http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.0 where it actually belongs. Thank you.
 

[Knezzen]

I have fixed this in the new theme, so all images resize to the width of the post, so no more scrolling horizontally. So no need to manually crop or make images smaller. Everyone gets to see the full picture, so to say

You might need to clear your browser cache to be able to see the changes.

Thanks for pointing this out, aBc!

[aBc]

The NEW - Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 Version

TL;DR
Post (and / or) embed images at or under 978 pixels wide. But
never larger than 1400 pixels wide. (And resolutions @ 72 ppi.)


Believe me.

This was as much fun to assemble as it is for you to read.
(Which means “not very much fun at all”.)

Where things stand now, as far as embedding images
within posts et cetera. (And still, possibly… subject to change.)

NOW to the POINT!

For those that intend to include or embed images within their
posts in a sort of “Text + Image + Text + Image + Text”
et cetera format…

Some guidelines, overly complicated instructions and examples:

1. Size your images to 1400 pixels wide and 72 dpi (not 96 dpi).
    More on this later - depending upon which theme you choose.

2. If you don’t need to show images of this large size and can
    instead, use images 978 pixels wide, or smaller. Do so.
    978 pixels wide is the maximum image width under
    theme 2.0 (without the need for scrolling).

3. If no need to embed your image(s) don’t. Just attach them
    as normal to your post(s) and others can click to view them.
    If they’re too large (above 1400) members squawk… a lot.

4. But do please try to adhere to that maximum of 1400 pixels
    width for large images, when needed.

5. You can still elect to post images larger than 1400 pixels…
    which now will be made "auto-scrollable", under the new
    2.0 theme / while still possibly viewable under Blu theme.
    However, much larger images under Blu may end up again
    as “overly scrollable” & subject to resize & editing by mods.

This is all about some sort of median “bridge” between the new
Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 theme and the original (now) “Blu” theme.
Posting in, or under one… while also considering the other.

Last week, ssp3 and I worked on this for many many hours.
Hopefully it will not all have been in vain and will be a “plus”.

Examples here should be viewed under new 2.0 theme.
But you can view under “Blu” too… if you want to. (I hope.)


Number ONE



This shows 978 pixel wide image displayed @ 524 pixels wide.
The new 2.0 theme automatically re-sizes original images
at 978 pixels or less, to fit within theme’s visual opening.


Within Number ONE above, you can see the attachment
entitled BRIDGE.png How do you get that “Copy Image Link”
address to then insert it?

Refer: http://macos9lives.com/smforum/index.php?topic=6143.0

Except that example notes: “Copy Image Location”. (circa 2021)


It’s a total pain, but when it comes to step-by-step processes or
viewing certain how-to procedures… well, much better “flow”.😀


More ABOUT Number ONE
A screenshot of some screenshots, of a screenshot.

Shown within that displayed 978 pixel wide image is the relative
size representations of the Blu theme and the new 2.0 theme.
Note the blue-arrowed line compared to the red-arrowed line.
That’s representative of what you can see under Blu and 2.0.
Also the maximum relative sizes of the two CPU images under
both themes are shown. Yeah, it confuses me too.

But to me, I’d like a combination of both themes:
The text formatting of 2.0 PLUS the greater image size of Blu.
Some have seen me “force” that text formatting under the Blu
theme before. As I did here in the example of Blu with text
formatted like 2.0. Are you lost yet? I might be too.

Still, even if you don’t embed images and just leave them as
attachments at the bottom of your posts, even a 1400 pixel
image can be viewed under 2.0. You’ll just have to scroll like
in the next example. Maybe not under Blu, but still… maybe?

Depends on your screen and specific browser.

Hell, you can even double-click on such attachments, opening
them and then drag them to your desktop for offline viewing.



Number TWO




So above, with the attachment (from the bottom) double-clicked
and expanded under 2.0 you may finally be able to read the
body of text from the 1400 pixel wide image. (Notice the gray
scroll bar at the bottom?) Now maybe change themes from
Mac OS 9 Lives 2.0 back to Blu theme and notice a difference?

[978 total pixels wide as displayed under the new 2.0 theme.]

Again, no. I’m not Anti-2.0 theme and now I plan to original post
under 2.0 and then go back to Blu - to force format text and edit
as necessary. So that both themes remain viable, and user-
selectable options. Sometimes you may just need the larger
images to view the more intricate details. AND if everyone
adopts & adheres to the 1400 or 978 pixel widths that could
mean a lot less image modification work for some of us.
Pretty please?

Thanks for taking the time to read all of this.

Undoubtedly, this soon to all be well buried within the
Forum… but occasionally referenced, going forward.
(For now.)

And tired of typing “Blu” could this be changed to “1.0”?


ADDENDUM:
Note:
Images ONE and TWO screenshots above were downsized to
978 pixels wide in order to be displayed as they would be
seen under the new 2.0 theme.

AND if you’d care to view an entire 1400 pixel width image
under 2.0 or under Blu, double click the attached image
below entitled THREE.

When composing under the Blu theme you can still pre-define
what size you'd like to have images displayed under the new
2.0 constraints. Keep in mind the 978 pixel wide limitation.



Viewed with browser set @ 100% and under the new 2.0 theme,
this 978 pixel width image still displays @ roughly 540 pixels
wide onscreen. That’s right at 55% of the actual image size.

Browser set @ 133% - it improves to almost 74% of actual size.

Browser set to 100% (viewed under Blu theme) 100% of 978 pixels.