OT: Reduce Bandwidth Addon & html usage

LanceNewmanOCC

.
FF image block 3.1

to reduce bandwidth usage i have tried and loved the above addon.

SIGNIFICANTLY reduces the amount of data transferred from the various sites i use and is a simple 1 click on/off feature so if i need/want to see an image(s), i can do so. pages also load much faster via wifi/mobile broadband.

was going to post to another thread about addons since the new format started but i apparently need more time to figure out how to effectively use the basic/advanced search feature.

tried to find the thread(s) re: color that site, to no avail despite several methods.

thankfully when members upload their obscenely large images to what i presume is pcgs' server, it shows the image size before clicking. a person usually has no idea what will load when they go to a site. maybe an addon that pre-scans and delivers and estimate of the amount of data a certain page will require to load before doing so? cumbersome but effective. or just use the above addon and block everything outright.

when i reload ebay for instance to see if there are any messages/sales etc, i don't need all those images loading again for a simple amount of required information/data. i opted out of the email features. too annoying for now. i opt in/out depending on mood.

fwiw, a single image of an obv/rev, should never be over 750k. a 2mb single image is unnecessary and easily fixed by simply reducing dimensions and/or size with photoscape or another image quality reducer. after taking over 40k images and editing probably over 500k in my life, i feel comfortable saying this. more effort on the uplooaders end makes it better for all the viewers/end users. as does coding, usually.

my image quality starts out so high with my d90 and/or iphone 5s that i reduce images by 80% and see virtually no degradation of quality. if i wanted to push, i could do 85-90% but that requires much more effort. 70-80% works like a charm.

in a mobile world, efficiency is priority. less servers, data centers/clouds, electricity, bandwidth, loading time. etc etc.

for those that want to do quantity right after transferring from camera to pc, try light image resizer. best of the bulk reducers i've tried thus far and is quite powerful in its simple options.

i recommend making backups until you get your modus operandi down pat.

hope it helps.
.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
so pure html seems to be accepted. i will tinker some more. so far just the img src tag.
.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
tried some html via test forum. submission of post needed approval and as of yet, has not approved. 2 weeks?

on another note and the reason i came to post.

Should work on Vista OS forward. Maybe older versions.

if you are wondering how many images are stored on your pc by various programs and maybe want to free up disk space or find an old image(s), or whatever, open up my computer, c: drive and then search .jpg, .jpeg, .png etc. this is a power intensive process and unless you have a very good pc, i recommend closing all other programs. you can change the option(s) to show only details in lieu of loading the thousands/tens of thousands of images that may load up. view details shows only text. which still may be a lot.

here are a couple file paths i've found many thousands of images that were stored that i had no idea of or forgot about. one can only recall so much, at least in my case. since vista, all these files carry forward at the user's request to prevent having to backup/reupload. a fantastic feature 99%.

c: - ProgramData - eBay - TurboLister - Data - username
c: Users - username for PC - AppData (hidden) - Local - Microsoft - Windows Photo Gallery - Original Images

your file directory may differ depending on how you/it installed. the search method mentioned above will find it for you. good to view all hidden files in folder tools/options.

none of the programs i use to clear crap files touched these locations. makes me wonder what else is hiding in there.

other program files/folders to check: photoscape, paint.net and other image editing programs.

i'd say i've removed between 15-25k images from using these methods.
.

LanceNewmanOCC

.
ok, they finally approved.
.

BStrauss3

I disagree on two important points.

/1/ DO NOT ALTER YOUR ORIGINAL IMAGE.

Edit & reduce in size a copy. Save the originals - untouched - for future use. Storage is relatively cheap. I shoot raw + jpeg and it runs 30-35MB / image.

The original 5208x3469 image can certainly be shrunk to 1350x899 and saved with an 95% quality creating a 525Kb image.

BUT

Do so with some thought. While you can drop the size of images for posting, remember the growth in screen size that has occurred in the last decade. There was a time we all used 640x480 images to fit on our monitors - and posting anything larger was a waste.

Today? 1920x1080 is a pretty standard resolution for monitors. 4K is coming.

Even smartphones - a Samsung Galaxy S7 is 2560x1440 and the iPhone 7 is 1334x750. Your full screen image of a decade ago is now 30% or smaller...

/2/ If you are asking us to grade, we need to be able to zoom in to see the details.

oih82w8

I found that photobucket images using the html still works relatively quickly. Uploading from my computer...not so much.