I'm getting "Error Message 301" when I go to upload a photo. What do I need to do to correct this? John Bartolotto
I get that when I try to upload an image that is way too large. I usually reduce the pixel count to something line 1000 wide before it will accept the image. I use Adobe photo shop to do that.
RailImages is now not letting upload any photos. Something is not right. I was able to load four photos then the fifth one which is the same size as the other four gave me the 301 error, now I can't load anything. John
Railimages resizes the images to be a maximum of 640 pixels across and vertical. It will usually handle compressing images about twice as large as that. I am not sure what the limits are however, I have notices that it will varies sometimes depending on the image. Certain variables such as extreme contrast and other things seem to reduce the size image that it will accept and compress. Maybe I am just imagining that, but I have had times when it accepts some and rejects others, all the same size. Maybe someone else will jump in here who knows what is going on. I just tried it out and loaded this image so at least it is working for me at this time.
I cant say about the error message, but I wanted to chime in with my 2 cents for uploading photos online... You said the image size you are attempting to upload is 3072 × 2304 which is about 6 megapixles!! To put that into perspective, here's a visual reference of that image compared to the average computer monitor size... Right click and choose view image, then make it full screen. I bet most users can barely fit the red box. Each time you double the resolution, you QUADRUPLE the file size. If the image is any larger than the green region, 3/4ths of information in that image will never be seen to anyone viewing that image on the average computer screen. (If you viewed the image full screen would only see every 4th pixel.) Furthermore, it will take everyone 4 times longer to load the image before they can view anything anyways. Unless the image is to be used for printing, theres zero benefit of having an image much larger than 1000x750 online. ** Now don't get me wrong, its definitely a good idea to shoot in those high resolutions in case you click a great photo and DO want to print it. ** All I'm saying is that if you take the 6 megapixel image and re-size it to around 1000x750, then you view each image on a computer screen so that you can see all the image, they will look nearly identical, but the smaller resolution one will be much more web friendly.
Good to hear John. As Russell said, the TB software does its best to re-size images to 640px, but sometimes the task is just too much. I also want to note that with the comming upgrade (scheduled for July!), the resolution limit will be upgraded too. As you can see above, the current size of 640 is relatively small compared to the average screen size. I believe the new size will be on the upper end of the green region I posted above but I don't know for sure.
To follow-up with Russell's comments about resizing down to something like 800x600 is that RailImages currently requires that you get the image below 1MB (1024K) before the file can be uploaded. Files off of most of today's Digital Cameras will create files that are several woo woo woo's in size which is great for printing but way to large for usage on most websites / forums. For my websites I also reduce the quality (as well as the size) of the images to get them below 100K as the photos are more meant just to be enjoyed online or as wallpaper and not for printing. Don't forget to keep your original files intact (unaltered by size, quality, etc.) and backed up as this is your "negative" you want to protect for the ages. :tb-biggrin: :tb-biggrin: :tb-biggrin: :tb-biggrin:
