Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

POSTING PICTURES - UPDATE

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    quote:Originally posted by DEEPNHOCK

    Note to forum poster's..
    Try to resize your pic's to 640x480 before putting them up here.
    That will keep the screensize small and prevent text word wrapping issues....
    Thanks ahead of time...
    Jeff[8D]
    [/quote]

    It doesn't do any good to keep them at 640X480 if you put
    them side by side. You have to put one above the other.
    I've got to where I just skip over the thread if I have to scroll
    back and forth to read it.
    But I figured this one was sorta important since it came from BS
    and it concerned posting pictures.


    Jerry Forrester
    Douglasville, Georgia
    Be sure to check out my eBay store
    http://stores.ebay.com/CHROME-CHROME-CHROME_ and my EZ33 store http://tinyurl.com/2g2j88
    for your shiny Stude stuff


    More pix of Leo the '55 Pres HT here...http://tinyurl.com/2gj6cu
    Jerry Forrester
    Forrester's Chrome
    Douglasville, Georgia

    See all of Buttercup's pictures at https://imgur.com/a/tBjGzTk

    Comment


    • #17
      Put each pic on it's own line...
      Not side by side.
      Separate the pic's by a blank line if you want some separation...
      Like this....
      Also...
      Keep your sentences on the short side, and start a new line for a new sentence.
      Easier to read on a forum.
      I 'copied' your sentence and split it and put it underneath as an example.
      Hope the info helps.
      Jeff[8D]



      [quote]quote:Originally posted by barnlark

      Double test shot of Wink's Studebaker Meet, Barberton, Ohio. Aug. '07. Bob Shaw, the IMG does not need to be lower cased on any of these tests. Dave



      Originally posted by barnlark

      Double test shot of Wink's Studebaker Meet, Barberton, Ohio. Aug. '07.
      Bob Shaw, the IMG does not need to be lower cased on any of these tests.
      Dave
      HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

      Jeff


      Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



      Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

      Comment


      • #18
        Thanks Jeff. I'm using a Mac and dragging the URL and still working out the bugs. I appreciate the tips so I can do a better job next time. Sorry to be too rookie-like. I've got some nice car shots from that meet that I'd like to share later.

        Comment


        • #19
          Bill, that IS the right one, right? The other post has me confused..
          quote:Originally posted by Bill Pressler

          Other than that goofy guy standing by the car, great pic! Thanks Dave!

          Bill Pressler
          Kent, OH
          '63 Lark Daytona Skytop R1

          quote:Originally posted by barnlark

          Bob Shaw, please excuse the new thread. I'm still trying to get this correct...Bill Pressler, how's this, pal?![img][/img]

          Comment


          • #20
            Thanks!
            quote:[i]Originally posted by aucyrano


            I absolutely love that car. Just thought I'd let you know.

            Kel

            1961 Studebaker Lark VIII. 6x,xxx miles from the factory. Daily driven.

            Comment


            • #21
              I know someone here will probably make a mess of this suggestion, but its a pretty good one on digital pics:

              If you're going for a detailed, magazine shot and you want to post to the web, the higher the resolution you can set the camera, the better. Now this will make the picture extraordinarily large(you know the scroll across the screen type). But, by shrinking it to the 640 X 480 semi readable size, the picture should still come out as good as when it was when it retained its original oversized size. Conversely though, its harder to take a small picture and blow it up to 640 X 480 size with a digital picture, as the lower resolution could result in pixelating, blurring, and in general making the picture harder to view. The other thing is bigger can be better, but it can also swallow your memory pretty quick, so as they say "make the shots count", lol.


              1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
              1950 Studebaker 2R5 with 170 turbocharged
              [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00003.jpg?t=1171152673[/img=left]
              [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00009.jpg?t=1171153019[/img=right]
              [img=left]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00002.jpg?t=1171153180[/img=left]
              [img=right]http://i158.photobucket.com/albums/t102/PlainBrownR2/DSC00005.jpg?t=1171153370[/img=right]
              1964 Studebaker Commander R2 clone
              1963 Studebaker Daytona Hardtop with no engine or transmission
              1950 Studebaker 2R5 w/170 six cylinder and 3spd OD
              1955 Studebaker Commander Hardtop w/289 and 3spd OD and Megasquirt port fuel injection(among other things)

              Comment


              • #22
                Yeah, it's the right pic. I was just making fun of myself!

                By the way, your '60 convertible looks terrific!

                In answer to Matthew, I think the "nose down" attitude of my '63 is due to:

                1) 195 x 75 radials (close to original size tires)
                2) I had the rear leaf springs re-arched (re-arced?) and they are a tad high, making the front look a bit low. Even with new front springs, that's the way she sits! I wish the rear was a tad lower.

                Bill Pressler
                Kent, OH
                '63 Lark Daytona Skytop R1

                [quote]Originally posted by barnlark

                Bill, that IS the right one, right? The other post has me confused..[quote]Originally posted by Bill Pressler

                Other than that goofy guy standing by the car, great pic! Thanks Dave!

                Bill Pressler
                Kent, OH
                '63 Lark Daytona Skytop R1

                Bill Pressler
                Kent, OH
                (formerly Greenville, PA)
                Currently owned: 1966 Cruiser, Timberline Turquoise, 26K miles
                Formerly owned: 1963 Lark Daytona Skytop R1, Ermine White
                1964 Daytona Hardtop, Strato Blue
                1966 Daytona Sports Sedan, Niagara Blue Mist
                All are in Australia now

                Comment


                • #23
                  One thing I have been doing for years (as a suggestion from Rick Courtier).....
                  I take all my pic's at the highest resolution my camera can take.
                  (Big memory chip, with the original as a spare).
                  Then, when I transfer them over to my 'puter, I copy them into the newly created, properly labeled file,
                  and immediately make a subfile named 'small' and copy them again into that file.
                  Then, using my photo editing program (I use Thumbs Plus), I go into that 'small' folder and do a 'batch convert'
                  and re-size them all to 640x480.
                  That way I can use anything out of the 'small' folder on the web and save the originals with no data loss.
                  BTW, I have a separate huge USB hard drive just for pic's.
                  Keeps the PC a whole lot less cluttered.
                  Hope the info helps.
                  Jeff[8D]



                  quote:Originally posted by PlainBrownR2

                  I know someone here will probably make a mess of this suggestion, but its a pretty good one on digital pics:

                  If you're going for a detailed, magazine shot and you want to post to the web, the higher the resolution you can set the camera, the better.
                  Now this will make the picture extraordinarily large(you know the scroll across the screen type).
                  But, by shrinking it to the 640 X 480 semi readable size, the picture should still come out as good
                  as when it was when it retained its original oversized size.
                  Conversely though, its harder to take a small picture and blow it up to 640 X 480 size with a digital picture,
                  as the lower resolution could result in pixelating, blurring,
                  and in general making the picture harder to view.
                  The other thing is bigger can be better, but it can also swallow your memory pretty quick, so as they say "make the shots count", lol.
                  HTIH (Hope The Info Helps)

                  Jeff


                  Get your facts first, and then you can distort them as much as you please. Mark Twain



                  Note: SDC# 070190 (and earlier...)

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Thanks for all of the info on how to include photos. But I still have
                    a (Mac) question. I set up a Photobucket account to collect images that I would like to submit to this forum. How can I batch send images that I have in iPhoto into the Photobucket album? I've tried the shift, Ctrl and Alt buttons when clicking on the wanted images, including clicking on the 1st of several images and then clicking on the last to try to include, say a batch of 20 photos, but it does not work. What am I doing wrong. Thanks

                    Don C.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Don,

                      Does your Photobucket not have a "bulk loader" link? There is one
                      under my inital 3 files to down load and then it asks me if I have
                      a lot?....Course I have a PC and not an Apple, so I don't if the
                      applications are different?

                      glen Brose - Perkinsville, AZ

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        quote:In answer to Matthew, I think the "nose down" attitude of my '63 is due to:

                        1) 195 x 75 radials (close to original size tires)
                        2) I had the rear leaf springs re-arched (re-arced?) and they are a tad high, making the front look a bit low. Even with new front springs, that's the way she sits! I wish the rear was a tad lower.
                        Bill, did you use heavy duty or standard front springs? I bought the HD ones, and I'm hoping the car won't sit too high with those...

                        Where can I get the rears re-arched? Are new or NOS ones not available?

                        I LIKE the nose down stance. [^]

                        Matthew Burnette
                        '59 Scotsman
                        '63 Daytona
                        Hazlehurst, GA

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Matthew, now that I think about it more (it's been about a decade!), I had an extra leaf installed in the rear springs. There is an old-time place in Akron, OH called Stuver Spring, not far from where I live, and they asked me about how much higher in the back I wanted it. I think I said "Three inches or so" and they did just that! BTW, the place is a step back in time. Old neon sign out front, current owner is an older fellow who is the son of the original owner, black-and-white photos of the shop from the '50's and '60's on the walls inside. I had them put my new front springs in this past year too. No appointments; first come, first serve, and this last time, there was a gorgeous '66 Thunderbird Town Landau and also a '65 Riviera Gran Sport there awaiting service too.

                          My front springs are from SI; I believe they are listed as "HD". I think that's all they sell. They barely made a difference in how my car sat. The "old" springs were put in during the 'driver' restoration ('93-'95). I don't think they'll make your car sit too high up front, especially with a Stude V8 in the engine bay!

                          Bill Pressler
                          Kent, OH
                          '63 Lark Daytona Skytop R1


                          quote:Originally posted by mbstude

                          quote:In answer to Matthew, I think the "nose down" attitude of my '63 is due to:

                          1) 195 x 75 radials (close to original size tires)
                          2) I had the rear leaf springs re-arched (re-arced?) and they are a tad high, making the front look a bit low. Even with new front springs, that's the way she sits! I wish the rear was a tad lower.
                          Bill, did you use heavy duty or standard front springs? I bought the HD ones, and I'm hoping the car won't sit too high with those...

                          Where can I get the rears re-arched? Are new or NOS ones not available?

                          I LIKE the nose down stance. [^]

                          Matthew Burnette
                          '59 Scotsman
                          '63 Daytona
                          Hazlehurst, GA

                          Bill Pressler
                          Kent, OH
                          (formerly Greenville, PA)
                          Currently owned: 1966 Cruiser, Timberline Turquoise, 26K miles
                          Formerly owned: 1963 Lark Daytona Skytop R1, Ermine White
                          1964 Daytona Hardtop, Strato Blue
                          1966 Daytona Sports Sedan, Niagara Blue Mist
                          All are in Australia now

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            [quote] "I've tried the shift, Ctrl and Alt buttons when clicking on the wanted images, including clicking on the 1st of several images and then clicking on the last to try to include, say a batch of 20 photos, but it does not work. What am I doing wrong. Thanks, Don C."

                            Don, I haven't tried the batch effort on my Mac, but I just drag them to the desktop and upload them into photobucket from the desktop file and adjust size at that time. I haven't had any luck editing the size after the upload. You should be able to highlight them all, click and drag them as a group into the bulk loader, though.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              [quote]Originally posted by Bill Pressler

                              Yeah, it's the right pic. I was just making fun of myself!

                              By the way, your '60 convertible looks terrific!

                              In answer to Matthew, I think the "nose down" attitude of my '63 is due to:

                              1) 195 x 75 radials (close to original size tires)
                              2) I had the rear leaf springs re-arched (re-arced?) and they are a tad high, making the front look a bit low. Even with new front springs, that's the way she sits! I wish the rear was a tad lower.
                              >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
                              Bill,
                              I think your car sits just right. I thought the previous post was just joking about your hood being up a little and making the rest of the front clip look lower! I had the new HD front springs from Myer's on my last '60 and it sat way too high; not sure what happened. To everyone else, you have to see this rare car of Bill's to appreciate it-beautiful...here's another test (before I found my NOS '60 grill badge; I tried a later smaller, lark only emblem in the 59, 61 location)

                              [img][/img]
                              Here's another test from the Wink's meet [img]

                              Here is another..


                              If we ever host an International, I want to see the Plain Brown Wrapper go up against this show off..!
                              [/img]

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                quote:Matthew, now that I think about it more (it's been about a decade!), I had an extra leaf installed in the rear springs. There is an old-time place in Akron, OH called Stuver Spring, not far from where I live, and they asked me about how much higher in the back I wanted it. I think I said "Three inches or so" and they did just that! BTW, the place is a step back in time. Old neon sign out front, current owner is an older fellow who is the son of the original owner, black-and-white photos of the shop from the '50's and '60's on the walls inside. I had them put my new front springs in this past year too. No appointments; first come, first serve, and this last time, there was a gorgeous '66 Thunderbird Town Landau and also a '65 Riviera Gran Sport there awaiting service too.

                                My front springs are from SI; I believe they are listed as "HD". I think that's all they sell. They barely made a difference in how my car sat. The "old" springs were put in during the 'driver' restoration ('93-'95). I don't think they'll make your car sit too high up front, especially with a Stude V8 in the engine bay!
                                Thanks Bill!

                                When I got new front springs from Stephen Allen's a year or so ago (maybe a little longer), they had regular and HD front springs, but the HD's were a little cheaper; probably because more people bought those and the tooling cost was lower. If I could find new rear springs, I'd grab them. When Stephen's was still in business, I called down there and asked them. I was told they weren't available then.

                                Matthew Burnette
                                '59 Scotsman
                                '63 Daytona
                                Hazlehurst, GA

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X