Picture upload

[PaulMontgomery]

Just tried it and I got this:
An error occurred:

<br> <b>Fatal error</b>: Cannot access empty property in <b>/data/data/tfu/www.photoradar.com/htdocs/sites/all/modules/imagefield/imagefield.module</b> on line <b>1156</b><br>

Don't know if it means anything to anyone (For info using safari 4.0.2 on a mac).

As an aside, it was a convoluted process - I was logged in, but couldn't find an obvious place in the 'user photos' tab to upload. Trying from the 'share photos' button on the home page (I think that's where I found it) prompted me to log in again...

[bushnall]

Uploading photos now working, well for me anyway. all i can say is keep trying

[ABERS]

Originally Posted by bushnall

Uploading photos now working, well for me anyway. all i can say is keep trying

Your the lucky one. I've just posted this on another part on the forum.

Well I'm obviously doing something wrong somewhere. I've just spent 15 fruitless minutes trying to upload an image to see what it will look like on the site, ticking all the right boxes and filling in all those other requirements and nothing, just a blank box with a red cross in it.
What puzzles me also is why do you HAVE to fill in the description box. Any picture worth its salt is self descriptive, or are you expected to relay all those innrmost feeling that you experienced when you took it? I suppose it allows you to let people know 'I've been to the outermost reaches of somewhere or other'.

Ah well back to Flickr, simple and quick to use.

[ABERS]

HOLD THE FORT!
I must have done something right, one of the images I posted has now just appeared, so I wonder what I did on that one that I didn't do on the others?
Being in a landscape format, the thumbnail has distorted it somewhat and the image when viewed has lost its full tonal range. Something I'd noticed when viewing the B+W section of the photos. They all seem remarkably flat.

Originally Posted by ABERS

HOLD THE FORT!
I must have done something right, one of the images I posted has now just appeared, so I wonder what I did on that one that I didn't do on the others?

This is why I keep banging on about the need for feedback from the "team".

You do something - it doesn't work. Later you do the same thing and it works. Is that

1. Because it's an intermittent fault? (oo nasty)
2. You didn't actually do exactly the same steps? (Generally the most likely)
3. Because they fixed the bug?
4. Because there's actually a time delay to processing uplaods (Amy has hinted at this but not answered my questions on it)

Not knowing whether it's 3 or not defeats most of the point of testing.

Being in a landscape format, the thumbnail has distorted it somewhat and the image when viewed has lost its full tonal range. Something I'd noticed when viewing the B+W section of the photos. They all seem remarkably flat.

Yeah there's some kind of image mangler on upload - possibly ImageMagick or something similar. Looks like it's pulling the tones out a bit. Which for a photo site is sub prime.

It's hard to say because I've only managed to upload one pic and I don't know what the originals of other pics are supposed to look like but looking at your Esher Common and assuming it's up to your usual high standards something has done a very nasty auto levels on it. It's the kind of thing to prioritise for testing because it's possible they will need to scrap the reprocess code and start again to get pics looking right. Maybe stick the same file up on Flickr so the team can compare.

[ABERS]

Right, the next step? How do I delete my pictures? Certainly don't want them displayed as they are.

[Boltondave]

Originally Posted by JonathanRyan

Yeah there's some kind of image mangler on upload - possibly ImageMagick or something similar. Looks like it's pulling the tones out a bit. Which for a photo site is sub prime.

Hmm... if it's ImageMagick, then my guess would be that the "-quality 100" switch is missing, or it's resizing down using a rubbish filtering algorithm ("box" or "lanczos" are reputed to be good). Also, it could be a case of the colourspace being mauled with. Worst case scenario, it could be a mix of all three of those functions, with "-sampling-factor" slung in for a laugh.

The powers-that-be need to sit down and have a good read of the ImageMagick options and settings. http://www.imagemagick.org/script/co...ne-options.php

[Lurkalot]

Originally Posted by Boltondave

Hmm... if it's ImageMagick, then my guess would be that the "-quality 100" switch is missing, or it's resizing down using a rubbish filtering algorithm ("box" or "lanczos" are reputed to be good). Also, it could be a case of the colourspace being mauled with. Worst case scenario, it could be a mix of all three of those functions, with "-sampling-factor" slung in for a laugh.

The powers-that-be need to sit down and have a good read of the ImageMagick options and settings. http://www.imagemagick.org/script/co...ne-options.php

Dave, to quote from the fix list,

"Picture upload: soft/sharp/flat shots
Q. A picture I have uploaded doesn’t reflect the quality of the original – when will this problem be rectified?
A. This is a priority fix for us. PR will now use ImageMagick to compress images. This has been installed on our test site and will be rolled out on the beta once we’ve approved it."

Seems they haven't started using it yet. Thanks for that link though, as I use imagemagick. I might learn something.

[Eileen]

Pictures don't look so bad on Cameracraniums Mick. good site - well worth a visit.

[Marcus Hawkins]

Hello everyone

ImageMagick is now running on this beta site - we'd be grateful if you could see if this works better for you.

Kind regards

Marcus