IMPORTANT; MEMORY SHORTAGE

[BlirGimp]

Seems to me that "MK" is bent on destroying the Forum by posting 100s of images

You're right and he isn't the only one but he's probably the record holder.

We have a challenger, BlirGimp: 12 attainments in 6 min 11.421 mb.
.https://ralphus.net/thegimpforum/viewto ... f=3&t=1004
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Action may have been taken
Last active: Mon Sep 30, 2024 2:49 am
Seems like a long time for him to go dark.

No action was taken against any individual or post or attachment. We went back to 3 pictures per post, as before with the hope that people wont abuse the privilege. That's all.

My comment at the time of resetting the number of pix per post was that the site has enough storage space for now and it will be like that for a long time unless there's a deluge of pages with posts and pictures that fills up the space. That's it.

I stand corrected, although I was only speculating, I guess he's maybe just boycotting us

So, are you, Clusb, asking that my posts be taken down or I be limited to one post or banned from this site altogether to conserve memory? Help me understand what you want Margot or me to do to make you happy.

When I looked at your member's name, I saw 1,000 posts listed since 2021, but your posts are almost 100% comments, and no posts of your's or anyone's original artwork or GIMP images.

[cluseb]

You're right and he isn't the only one but he's probably the record holder.

We have a challenger, BlirGimp: 12 attainments in 6 min 11.421 mb.
.https://ralphus.net/thegimpforum/viewto ... f=3&t=1004
.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No action was taken against any individual or post or attachment. We went back to 3 pictures per post, as before with the hope that people wont abuse the privilege. That's all.

My comment at the time of resetting the number of pix per post was that the site has enough storage space for now and it will be like that for a long time unless there's a deluge of pages with posts and pictures that fills up the space. That's it.

I stand corrected, although I was only speculating, I guess he's maybe just boycotting us

So, are you, Clusb, asking that my posts be taken down or I be limited to one post or banned from this site altogether to conserve memory? Help me understand what you want Margot or me to do to make you happy.

When I looked at your member's name, I saw 1,000 posts listed since 2021, but your posts are almost 100% comments, and no posts of your's or anyone's original artwork or GIMP images.

I'm not saying take your posts down , your art is original and certainly up to par, but they don't have to be almost a megabyte each.

While I admit of recent I've done more commenting than image posting, But I've put up over 700 original works since Sept. 2021, most between 200 and 400 kb..
The five most recent threads all original and gimpy (Once you get into the story) . links below

https://ralphus.net/thegimpforum/viewto ... ?f=3&t=767
https://ralphus.net/thegimpforum/viewto ... 3&start=80
https://ralphus.net/thegimpforum/viewto ... 126#p44126
https://ralphus.net/thegimpforum/viewto ... ?f=3&t=596
https://ralphus.net/thegimpforum/viewto ... ?f=3&t=536

DON'T STOP POSTING. Just shrink them down a bit before you put them up.
The fact that you clicked on this topic suggests you are aware of and sensitive to the storage issues of this site.
As they say in the UK .."Every little helps"

[BlirGimp]

I only responded because you included me with MK, who some have claimed in the string of comments is trying to destroy the site with pages and pages of pictures of old women.

I believe there is a niche demand for the GIMP images of the kind this site hosts, hence my interest and posts of my original artwork to this site.

But lots of the images on this site are, in my view, just a waste of electrons as they are poorly crafted, non-GIMP in nature, and simply crude pieces of photos run through an AI filter or Photoshopped to add wounds and very little to no individual creativity. Or, multiple posts of the same image, with minor tweaks that make no discernable difference. Just 'cause someone Photoshopped a picture, ran it through an AI filter or scraped it off someone else's website does not make it an Art Contribution.

Or, folks are just reposting photos or drawings scraped from somebody else's web site like a million pirate sites do. If one was really concerned about running out of memory storage, "takin' out the trash" and clearing such images from the site should be a priority.

Margot/Ralphus own the site and set its rules. The current rules allow for posts with up to 3 attachments of no more than 2Mb per attachment. No restrictions are placed on the number of posts or the time between posts. I follow those rules. All of my images are less than 2MB in size. In fact, if you try to upload an image greater than that, the site software blocks such attempts.

You may believe that 2Mb/attachment rule is too big and that posts should be smaller than 1Mb and less frequent but, unless I am mistaken, you don't set the rules for the site or manage it.

If folks like me who post their original artwork are considered the enemy of the site, and preserving memory resources is the #1 priority, this site will not be here for very long.

[Hey You]

I only responded because you included me with MK, who some have claimed in the string of comments is trying to destroy the site with pages and pages of pictures of old women.

I believe there is a niche demand for the GIMP images of the kind this site hosts, hence my interest and posts of my original artwork to this site.

But lots of the images on this site are, in my view, just a waste of electrons as they are poorly crafted, non-GIMP in nature, and simply crude pieces of photos run through an AI filter or Photoshopped to add wounds and very little to no individual creativity. Or, multiple posts of the same image, with minor tweaks that make no discernable difference. Just 'cause someone Photoshopped a picture, ran it through an AI filter or scraped it off someone else's website does not make it an Art Contribution.

Or, folks are just reposting photos or drawings scraped from somebody else's web site like a million pirate sites do. If one was really concerned about running out of memory storage, "takin' out the trash" and clearing such images from the site should be a priority.

Margot/Ralphus own the site and set its rules. The current rules allow for posts with up to 3 attachments of no more than 2Mb per attachment. No restrictions are placed on the number of posts or the time between posts. I follow those rules. All of my images are less than 2MB in size. In fact, if you try to upload an image greater than that, the site software blocks such attempts.

You may believe that 2Mb/attachment rule is too big and that posts should be smaller than 1Mb and less frequent but, unless I am mistaken, you don't set the rules for the site or manage it.

If folks like me who post their original artwork are considered the enemy of the site, and preserving memory resources is the #1 priority, this site will not be here for very long.

Tbh if you consider some images on site as waste of electrons some other people consider your style as something not in their alley. Me included. But that does not mean that you should stop doing your art becouse im also sure plenty of people love it.

I agree on rules. They are set and we follow them as best as we can.

Also this site is here for 25 years. Was here long before you came on it and will probably be long before we are gone from it.

[BobDarkroom]

...

You may believe that 2Mb/attachment rule is too big and that posts should be smaller than 1Mb and less frequent but, unless I am mistaken, you don't set the rules for the site or manage it.

If folks like me who post their original artwork are considered the enemy of the site, and preserving memory resources is the #1 priority, this site will not be here for very long.

I'm pretty sure that the 2Mb size limit currently set the by the site administrators is in no way intended to consider you or other members wanting to post big files as enemies of the site and I'm pretty sure Reine Margot will confirm that.

Now let me explain why 2Mb limit is quite high for websites and why 1MB or even a 800kB would be more realistic.

Images posted on a website are intended to be displayed on a computer monitor., right?
A full HD monitor has a resolution of 1920 pixels x 1080 pixels.
Any picture that is more than 1920 px wide or more than 1080 px high will be shrunk by the display driver software to fit on the screen resolution when displayed in full screen mode. When displayed on part of the screen it will be shrunk even further down (like the previews in the posts). And when displayed at 100% only part of the picture will be visible.

Only members or guests with 4K HD monitors are able to see pictures up to 3840 px x 2160 px at 100% (i.e. 4 times the size of a Full HD pic). I'm pretty sure that only a limited number, if any, of the members and guests here are using a 4K monitor.

It's also very likely that there are members and guests with lower resolution monitors especially on small or older laptops. On those displays the high resolution images will simply be shrunk even further down.

Below are 2 identical images from a shoot I did some time ago.
The size of the photo as it came out of the camera is 6720 px x 3780 px and saved as full size jpg with quality set to 10 in Photoshop is 5480kB (with PS maximum quality level of 12 it's over 15MB)
The original has a 3:2 ratio, the standard for DSLR cameras.
I cropped the height to get pics with a 16:9 ratio fititng the Full HD 16:9 ratio.
The first pic is 3840 px x 2160 px (4K resolution) and its file size is 1986 kB (just under the 2MB limit)
The second is 1920 px x 1080 px (Full HD resolution) and its file size is 679 kB (about 34.2% of the first one!)

Now I challenge you to open both versions consecutively and if you see any noticeable difference in quality on your screen (assuming you use a Full HD screen) let me now but I'd be very surprised if you do.

3840 px x 2160 px - File size 1986 kB

1920 px x 1080 px - File size 679 kB

To make a long story short, it seems that creators of 2D and certainly 3D artwork are not always aware of the fact that their creations will generate a very big file if they use high resolution formats. If the artwork size exceeds the Full HD size of 1920 px by 1080 px, please make a resized version using those pixel counts as the limiting factors ans upload that version to the site. Uploading them with bigger dimensions is useless, they will in any case be shrunk to fit the physical limits of the monitor screen.
By applying the principle of limiting the picture dimensions for files you intend to upload to the Full HD size you will always have files far below 2MB in size and probably even below 800kB.

Don't get me wrong, this is certainly not intended as a reproach to you but as a general advise to art creators who don' t seem to be aware of the impact of an artwork size in pixels on the resulting file size.

As far as the contents of this site concerns, there are very active posters, active posters and occasional posters (like me). This results in a wide variety of images (photos, manipulated photos, drawings, 3D artwork, AI generated of modified artwork and so on ...). The GIMP content as well as the quality of the post also varies a lot but that doesn't bother me. As there are no thumbs up/thumbs down or other liking/not liking options on this site, I guess we'll have to live with it. Don't forget that what you like is not necessarily liked by everybody and vice versa.
And if I'm not mistaken Reine Margot said that storage is not an issue at the moment, so let's try to keep it that way by keeping the file sizes within reasonable limits and avoid flooding the site with too many posts per day.

[wulf]

I only responded because you included me with MK, who some have claimed in the string of comments is trying to destroy the site with pages and pages of pictures of old women.

I believe there is a niche demand for the GIMP images of the kind this site hosts, hence my interest and posts of my original artwork to this site.

But lots of the images on this site are, in my view, just a waste of electrons as they are poorly crafted, non-GIMP in nature, and simply crude pieces of photos run through an AI filter or Photoshopped to add wounds and very little to no individual creativity. Or, multiple posts of the same image, with minor tweaks that make no discernable difference. Just 'cause someone Photoshopped a picture, ran it through an AI filter or scraped it off someone else's website does not make it an Art Contribution.

Or, folks are just reposting photos or drawings scraped from somebody else's web site like a million pirate sites do. If one was really concerned about running out of memory storage, "takin' out the trash" and clearing such images from the site should be a priority.

Margot/Ralphus own the site and set its rules. The current rules allow for posts with up to 3 attachments of no more than 2Mb per attachment. No restrictions are placed on the number of posts or the time between posts. I follow those rules. All of my images are less than 2MB in size. In fact, if you try to upload an image greater than that, the site software blocks such attempts.

You may believe that 2Mb/attachment rule is too big and that posts should be smaller than 1Mb and less frequent but, unless I am mistaken, you don't set the rules for the site or manage it.

If folks like me who post their original artwork are considered the enemy of the site, and preserving memory resources is the #1 priority, this site will not be here for very long.

So in your opinion, everyone here who isn't an accomplished artist such as yourself should not post anything here at all. The fact is that not everyone has the talent, or software and the skill to use it, as you do, but still have the desire to contribute to the forum in whatever way they can. To call it trash is being disrespectful at best, and certainly doesn't give any encouragement to keep working on improveing their skills.

I am one of those that post images of other artist's work. I do so for the purpose of entertainment and for discussion here on the Gimp. It's also my way of sharing what I've collected over 45 years (much of it paid for) with others. I enjoy the thought of posting something that other enthusiasts haven't seen before, and I always give the artist's name if I know it.

The storage issue here has to do with quanity of images posted, not the quality of content. If this forum were to restrict posts based on perceived 'quality' of the work, and who can or cannot post it, then participation here would become less and less, and eventually you and perhaps a few others would e the only ones left.... and I agree this site wouldn't be here much longer.

[BobDarkroom]

I only responded because you included me with MK, who some have claimed in the string of comments is trying to destroy the site with pages and pages of pictures of old women.

I believe there is a niche demand for the GIMP images of the kind this site hosts, hence my interest and posts of my original artwork to this site.

But lots of the images on this site are, in my view, just a waste of electrons as they are poorly crafted, non-GIMP in nature, and simply crude pieces of photos run through an AI filter or Photoshopped to add wounds and very little to no individual creativity. Or, multiple posts of the same image, with minor tweaks that make no discernable difference. Just 'cause someone Photoshopped a picture, ran it through an AI filter or scraped it off someone else's website does not make it an Art Contribution.

Or, folks are just reposting photos or drawings scraped from somebody else's web site like a million pirate sites do. If one was really concerned about running out of memory storage, "takin' out the trash" and clearing such images from the site should be a priority.

Margot/Ralphus own the site and set its rules. The current rules allow for posts with up to 3 attachments of no more than 2Mb per attachment. No restrictions are placed on the number of posts or the time between posts. I follow those rules. All of my images are less than 2MB in size. In fact, if you try to upload an image greater than that, the site software blocks such attempts.

You may believe that 2Mb/attachment rule is too big and that posts should be smaller than 1Mb and less frequent but, unless I am mistaken, you don't set the rules for the site or manage it.

If folks like me who post their original artwork are considered the enemy of the site, and preserving memory resources is the #1 priority, this site will not be here for very long.

So in your opinion, everyone here who isn't an accomplished artist such as yourself should not post anything here at all. The fact is that not everyone has the talent, or software and the skill to use it, as you do, but still have the desire to contribute to the forum in whatever way they can. To call it trash is being disrespectful at best, and certainly doesn't give any encouragement to keep working on improveing their skills.

I am one of those that post images of other artist's work. I do so for the purpose of entertainment and for discussion here on the Gimp. It's also my way of sharing what I've collected over 45 years (much of it paid for) with others. I enjoy the thought of posting something that other enthusiasts haven't seen before, and I always give the artist's name if I know it.

The storage issue here has to do with quanity of images posted, not the quality of content. If this forum were to restrict posts based on perceived 'quality' of the work, and who can or cannot post it, then participation here would become less and less, and eventually you and perhaps a few others would e the only ones left.... and I agree this site wouldn't be here much longer.

Wulf, I totally agree with you!

[doe.1971]

Wulfie man, w/o your comments (and a seldom others) I wouldn't bother going on. Creators are suckers for criticism. Not praise but acknowledgement. I gave up on a few other places I tried to branch exactly because of this reason. So go on lying to me how good am I.

As for size, yeah, I try keep my 1920x1080 in the 200..300 KByte range

[BobDarkroom]

Wulfie man, w/o your comments (and a seldom others) I wouldn't bother going on. Creators are suckers for criticism. Not praise but acknowledgement. I gave up on a few other places I tried to branch exactly because of this reason. So go on lying to me how good am I.

As for size, yeah, I try keep my 1920x1080 in the 200..300 KByte range

JD, you don't have to create your artwork with its dimensions within the 1920x1080 Full HD limits. Create them in whatever size you want but don't post them in their original size if they are bigger than those dimension.
For posting just make a resized copy with dimensions within the said limits. Its file size will be significantly smaller and in terms of display quality you won't see a difference on a standard monitor at full screen display.

I do the same with my photos as an amateur photographer (i.e. non bdsm related pics). I use the original files with a high pixel count for printing but I use resized copies for displaying on computers only.

There's also an advantage for creators that is probably unknown or overlooked : full resolution images are a much better base for someone who wants to download them as a base for his/her own manipulations! The level of detail will be much higher than in the resized version. A resized version with a lower resolution will have less detail when zoomed in.

If you download the 2 pictures I included in my previous mail you wont see a difference when displayed at 100%.
However, if you start zooming in, the 3840x2160 one will allow a much higher zoom rate than the 1920x1080 one without becoming pixelated. And ... AI works better with high resolution pictures as far as I know.

So, in a way you protect your own way against piracy if you post it in lower resolution than the original.

Resizing can be done with Photoshop but there are also free image viewers with resize tools (e.g. Irfanview)

[doe.1971]

JD, you don't have to create your artwork with its dimensions within the 1920x1080 Full HD limits. Create them in whatever size you want but don't post them in their original size if they are bigger than those dimension.
For posting just make a resized copy with dimensions within the said limits. Its file size will be significantly smaller and in terms of display quality you won't see a difference on a standard monitor at full screen display.

Always, ALWAYS my output has the resolution of my display. I started with 640x480 all the way to 1920x1080. JPEG compression 90% they rarely exceed 400KB. Since I'm not that much of a frequent poster I doubt it's me that clogs the pipes. But for a good measure, last images I posted externally. The only drawback with this method is that might disappear over night, at the whim of the admins of PostImages site.

So, in a way you protect your own way against piracy if you post it in lower resolution than the original.

I encourage piracy, I welcome it! I find it flattering if someone is 'stealing' my work.