Nature Photographers Network
This is the preserved archive of the original Nature Photographers Network. The community continues at naturephotographers.network.

Posting images gallery vs. forum

Discussion

10 replies
Posted by Rodney Ninow on February 13, 2009 at 2:53 PM
Just wondering why people post in the forum and others post in the gallery.
Posted by Hank Pennington on February 13, 2009 at 3:10 PM
I'm going to raise my hand and stomp my foot on behalf of others with slow connections. As much as I love the photos, it's a clear choice for me NOT to go to the galleries and visit the discussions instead most of the time.

I can get the discussion pages to load in a minute or two, but gallery thumbnail pages can take 5 minutes or longer. And when folks link to larger images off-site, I might as well go for a walk while waiting for their images to load.

If many photos start popping up in the threads, I'm going to start popping off the screen. Think for a minute about a poor sucker stuck on a rock in the middle of the Gulf of Alaska with 2k/sec upload and download speeds. That's K and not MB.
Posted by Rodney Ninow on February 13, 2009 at 3:31 PM
Wow Hank! I feel for you. I see an obvious reason from your reply to keep photos OUT of the forums.

But I see a lot of photos in the forums. Maybe they are posting them in area specific forums, such as the California one, to share with other Californians.
Posted by Lon Overacker on February 13, 2009 at 4:03 PM
Rodney,

The discussion forums such as the NP Discussion (general nature,) Digital and Marketing "forums" are pretty much for discussion, questions, etc. as opposed to images. Now the Regional forums, such as CANP, are as the title indicates, regional forums where folks can share locations, have get togethers and share images from their local region. Some times folks will show an image in their local forum before placing in the broader galleries like ES&S.

And so, the Galleries are intended mostly for comments and critique.

Hope this makes sense.

Lon
Posted by Rodney Ninow on February 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM
Thanks Lon, that makes sense.
Posted by Steve Foss on February 13, 2009 at 4:29 PM
If many photos start popping up in the threads, I'm going to start popping off the screen. Think for a minute about a poor sucker stuck on a rock in the middle of the Gulf of Alaska with 2k/sec upload and download speeds. That's K and not MB.


Hank, I'd call the WAAAAmbulance, but it probably couldn't reach Kodiak. :razz: :razz:
Posted by Rodney Ninow on February 13, 2009 at 4:39 PM
Hank, off topic here, but I wonder, have you looked into getting a satellite internet account? I have one from Hughes and it works great. I paid about $800 (after hughes rebate) for the equipment from an Ebay seller and the plan is $59 a month. Slow days are 300-400k DL and 20-50 up, and fast times I get download speeds of 900-1100 with uploads around 100-150.
Posted by Jeffrey Sipress on February 13, 2009 at 4:40 PM
Hank, you need a satellite modem!
Posted by Paul Breitkreuz on February 13, 2009 at 6:33 PM
Rodney, the explanation Lon has provided is right on. Typically, under the main Forum drop down only the Regional areas listed as Alaska thru UK should or can receive image posts for comments or discussions.
Where as the main Galleries drop down is for image posts for review and comments by specific category. :wink:
Posted by Hank Pennington on February 13, 2009 at 7:17 PM
"Hank, off topic here, but I wonder, have you looked into getting a satellite internet account? I have one from Hughes and it works great. I paid about $800 (after hughes rebate) for the equipment from an Ebay seller and the plan is $59 a month. Slow days are 300-400k DL and 20-50 up, and fast times I get download speeds of 900-1100 with uploads around 100-150. "

It's a possibility, but dishes and receivers large enough for our low angle start at around $2500, and local rates for satellite are $149/month.......... All that for 300k downloads and 56k uploads.

Best hope is for a wireless system when the fiber-optic cable is eventually hooked up in Kodiak, but I'm not holding my breath about signal quality or strength, even line of site across the 12 miles of ocean that separate us. Cheaper for them than running 35 miles of wire around the water, but maybe not so good for us.
Posted by David Prichard on February 14, 2009 at 7:53 PM
Hank,

If it is of any comfort to you, a friend in a rural Ontario town lives 50 yards past the range of the local broadband. When he and his wife have large updates or files to transfer, they park in the library parking lot with the laptop to take advantage of the free library wireless. Parking in the digital age... :wink: