Directing to a picture

Discussion in 'HTML' started by Jim S, Jul 21, 2010.

  1. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    My site consists of photographs with captions. Each one (or group) has its
    own page which is linked to the menu page of thumbnails. If I wish to point
    someone to a particular picture then I send a link to the page.
    In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    to an individual picture. The best I could do was to send a link to the
    thumbnail page and tell the user which one to choose.
    Is there a way to get round this?
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
    Jim S, Jul 21, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Jim S wrote:
    > My site consists of photographs with captions. Each one (or group) has its
    > own page which is linked to the menu page of thumbnails. If I wish to point
    > someone to a particular picture then I send a link to the page.
    > In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    > pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    > to an individual picture. The best I could do was to send a link to the
    > thumbnail page and tell the user which one to choose.
    > Is there a way to get round this?


    Way around what? What you say you have now have is you can send someone
    to a particular image whereas before you couldn't. Is this a problem?
    IIRC before you had a frame system hence why you could not link to an
    individual page, (the beauty of frames).

    --
    Take care,

    Jonathan
    -------------------
    LITTLE WORKS STUDIO
    http://www.LittleWorksStudio.com
    Jonathan N. Little, Jul 21, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:04:41 -0700, wrote:

    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:29:42 +0100, Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >>My site consists of photographs with captions. Each one (or group) has its
    >>own page which is linked to the menu page of thumbnails. If I wish to point
    >>someone to a particular picture then I send a link to the page.
    >>In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    >>pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    >>to an individual picture. The best I could do was to send a link to the
    >>thumbnail page and tell the user which one to choose.
    >>Is there a way to get round this?

    >
    > Take a look at this:
    >
    > http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    >
    > then "Tap to Return" to see the thumbnails.
    >
    > --
    > MasonC


    Sorry, it does not work in Firefox (although it does in IE8)
    It does not re-size down if the user is working on a small resolution.
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
    Jim S, Jul 21, 2010
    #3
  4. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 14:29:43 -0400, Jonathan N. Little wrote:

    > Jim S wrote:
    >> My site consists of photographs with captions. Each one (or group) has its
    >> own page which is linked to the menu page of thumbnails. If I wish to point
    >> someone to a particular picture then I send a link to the page.
    >> In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    >> pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    >> to an individual picture. The best I could do was to send a link to the
    >> thumbnail page and tell the user which one to choose.
    >> Is there a way to get round this?

    >
    > Way around what? What you say you have now have is you can send someone
    > to a particular image whereas before you couldn't. Is this a problem?
    > IIRC before you had a frame system hence why you could not link to an
    > individual page, (the beauty of frames).


    Hi Jonathan.
    As usual I am not making myself clear. Let me try - using my site.
    The local thumbnails are here:
    http://www.jimscott.co.uk/Local/LH_000_thumbnails.html
    If I wish to direct someone to the page showing the Low Light, I send them
    this link: http://www.jimscott.co.uk/Local/LH_190_new_low_light.html

    However if I use one of the several "lightbox" type scripts to open the Low
    Light pictures overlaying the thumbnails page, then I cannot send a link
    because the address remains as the thumbnails address whichever picture is
    overlaid. The best I can do is to send them the thumbnails link and tell
    them to go to the thumbnail I choose and tell them to click on it. Not
    really a big deal, but a bit clunky in a page with lots of pictures.

    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
    Jim S, Jul 21, 2010
    #4
  5. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:29:42 +0100, Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    > >My site consists of photographs with captions. Each one (or group) has its
    > >own page which is linked to the menu page of thumbnails. If I wish to point
    > >someone to a particular picture then I send a link to the page.
    > >In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    > >pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    > >to an individual picture. The best I could do was to send a link to the
    > >thumbnail page and tell the user which one to choose.
    > >Is there a way to get round this?

    >
    > Take a look at this:
    >
    > http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    >

    Gee, Mason! Are you serious?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 21, 2010
    #5
  6. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Jim S <> wrote:

    ....
    > As usual I am not making myself clear. Let me try - using my site.
    > The local thumbnails are here:
    > http://www.jimscott.co.uk/Local/LH_000_thumbnails.html
    > If I wish to direct someone to the page showing the Low Light, I send them
    > this link: http://www.jimscott.co.uk/Local/LH_190_new_low_light.html
    >
    > However if I use one of the several "lightbox" type scripts to open the Low
    > Light pictures overlaying the thumbnails page, then I cannot send a link
    > because the address remains as the thumbnails address whichever picture is
    > overlaid. The best I can do is to send them the thumbnails link and tell
    > them to go to the thumbnail I choose and tell them to click on it. Not
    > really a big deal, but a bit clunky in a page with lots of pictures.


    You can do better if you still have

    <http://www.jimscott.co.uk/Local/LH_190_new_low_light.html>

    on your server. Just give them this link.

    Or even simpler give them a couple of links to the pics themselves

    <http://www.jimscott.co.uk/Local/LH_images/Low_light.jpg>

    and

    <http://www.jimscott.co.uk/Local/LH_images/Low_light_plaque.jpg>

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 21, 2010
    #6
  7. Jim S

    Andy Dingley Guest

    On 21 July, 15:29, Jim S <> wrote:
    > In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    > pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    > to an individual picture.


    Set up a set of new pages for single image viewing, with sensible,
    stable URLs to them. Use these for emails and bookmarks. There's no
    reason why they have to be linked from the gallery page, but equally
    you can do this anyway through a small subtle link. I'm not a fan of
    that lightbox script, as it's a pain for printing.

    This sounds like a lot of work, but that's why we use server-side
    scripting for nearly everything.
    Andy Dingley, Jul 21, 2010
    #7
  8. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:56:33 -0700 (PDT), Andy Dingley wrote:

    > On 21 July, 15:29, Jim S <> wrote:
    >> In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    >> pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    >> to an individual picture.

    >
    > Set up a set of new pages for single image viewing, with sensible,
    > stable URLs to them. Use these for emails and bookmarks. There's no
    > reason why they have to be linked from the gallery page, but equally
    > you can do this anyway through a small subtle link. I'm not a fan of
    > that lightbox script, as it's a pain for printing.
    >
    > This sounds like a lot of work, but that's why we use server-side
    > scripting for nearly everything.


    Apart from the sending links problem I had not thought about the printing
    pain. I know it took me ages to convert the site last time I tried the
    lightbox method (actually I used lightview). Apart from the visual effect
    of the 'blossoming' graphic, I like its ability to shrink a photo if the
    window is too small.
    I fancy I'm a bit long in the tooth and short of patience to learn ASP or
    PHP, but you never know. <g>
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
    Jim S, Jul 22, 2010
    #8
  9. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article<>,
    > > wrote:
    > >

    ....
    > >> Take a look at this:
    > >>
    > >> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    > >>

    > > Gee, Mason! Are you serious?
    > >

    >
    > Seriously deranged.


    I was referring just to the markup, I have a standing rule not to
    remark on man's relations with sheep out of respect for a
    neighbouring country.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 22, 2010
    #9
  10. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article<>,
    > > Ed Mullen<> wrote:
    > >
    > >> dorayme wrote:
    > >>> In article<>,
    > >>> wrote:
    > >>>

    > > ...
    > >>>> Take a look at this:
    > >>>>
    > >>>> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    > >>>>
    > >>> Gee, Mason! Are you serious?
    > >>>
    > >>
    > >> Seriously deranged.

    > >
    > > I was referring just to the markup, ...
    > >

    >
    > Markup, schmarkup. The response was deranged, ...


    It was an attempt by Mason, surely, to show OP how to go about
    something, it was not *deranged*.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 22, 2010
    #10
  11. Jim S

    Jim S Guest

    On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 11:59:22 -0700, wrote:

    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:06:59 +0100, Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:04:41 -0700, wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:29:42 +0100, Jim S <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>My site consists of photographs with captions. Each one (or group) has its
    >>>>own page which is linked to the menu page of thumbnails. If I wish to point
    >>>>someone to a particular picture then I send a link to the page.
    >>>>In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    >>>>pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a link
    >>>>to an individual picture. The best I could do was to send a link to the
    >>>>thumbnail page and tell the user which one to choose.
    >>>>Is there a way to get round this?
    >>>
    >>> Take a look at this:
    >>>
    >>> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    >>>
    >>> then "Tap to Return" to see the thumbnails.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> MasonC

    >>
    >>Sorry, it does not work in Firefox (although it does in IE8)

    >
    > It does for my Firefox. In what way does it not work for you?
    > (by the way, your comment did lead me to find and correct an error. Thanks.)


    1st the Firefox problem.
    On my screen 1600 x 900 (although I don't know if that matters) the "tap to
    ruturn" box is in two parts - a bit after the picture and the rest centred
    below the picture.

    2nd the single image pages do not validate for a number of reasons.
    Put your page address in here http://validator.w3.org/

    3rd your idea of a lightbox is not the same as mine. Google 'lightbox' and
    you will find plenty of examples of javascripts which open your chosen
    image as an overlay. This is the simplest
    http://www.huddletogether.com/projects/lightbox/

    4th I think I might be trying to do something that does not work on mobile
    phones and I just managed to achieve that with my current website.

    Cheers
    --
    Jim S
    Tyneside UK
    www.jimscott.co.uk
    Jim S, Jul 22, 2010
    #11
  12. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > On Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:17:02 +0100, Jim S <> wrote:
    >

    ....
    >
    > Thanks for the observations, but I think the OP's question got lost
    > somewhere.


    Guess who the OP was?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 23, 2010
    #12
  13. Jim S

    123Jim Guest

    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 22:06:59 +0100, Jim S <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 12:04:41 -0700, wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Wed, 21 Jul 2010 15:29:42 +0100, Jim S <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>>My site consists of photographs with captions. Each one (or group) has
    >>>>its
    >>>>own page which is linked to the menu page of thumbnails. If I wish to
    >>>>point
    >>>>someone to a particular picture then I send a link to the page.
    >>>>In a previous version of the site I used a 'lightbox' procedure to open
    >>>>pictures/groups from the thumbnail page, but I could then not send a
    >>>>link
    >>>>to an individual picture. The best I could do was to send a link to the
    >>>>thumbnail page and tell the user which one to choose.
    >>>>Is there a way to get round this?
    >>>
    >>> Take a look at this:
    >>>
    >>> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    >>>
    >>> then "Tap to Return" to see the thumbnails.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> MasonC

    >>
    >>Sorry, it does not work in Firefox (although it does in IE8)

    >
    > It does for my Firefox. In what way does it not work for you?
    > (by the way, your comment did lead me to find and correct an error.
    > Thanks.)
    >


    I see this error in Firefox and Google Chrome:
    http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c323/deadline999/borderismisplaced-1.jpg

    It might be just me .. and I could be entirely wrong by the majority of
    people's preferences, but this border is very ugly . even when it works as
    you intend it to .. as seen in IE.

    Pictures are good though! .I don't know why some people here have a problem
    with sheep and other animals .. guilty perverse desires? :-]
    123Jim, Jul 23, 2010
    #13
  14. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <i2bvmr$151$-september.org>,
    "123Jim" <> wrote:

    > <> wrote in message

    ....
    > >>> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    > >>>

    ....
    > Pictures are good though! .I don't know why some people here have a problem
    > with sheep and other animals .. guilty perverse desires? :-]


    The pictures are not good, they are all either blurred or
    over-compressed. As are so many, including the absolutely crucial
    one of his self portrait (which we have discussed before). In
    fact, I believe that he does this deliberately *as a cover* - you
    know, 'nothing remarkable about my portrait being blurry, all my
    pics are this way, I have nothing to hide' sort of sly reasoning.
    I further believe he is no other than Luigi and has undergone
    some kind of American transformation and I reveal and expose him
    thus.

    (Now, Ed, this last of mine is *deranged*)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 23, 2010
    #14
  15. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:00 +1000, dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <i2bvmr$151$-september.org>,
    > > "123Jim" <> wrote:
    > >
    > >> <> wrote in message

    > >...
    > >> >>> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    > >> >>>

    > >...
    > >> Pictures are good though! .I don't know why some people here have a
    > >> problem
    > >> with sheep and other animals .. guilty perverse desires? :-]

    > >
    > >The pictures are ...all either blurred or
    > >over-compressed.


    .....
    >
    > Aww, c'mon dorayme, get a decent monitor.


    You mean your monitor corrects for what I am seeing on all my
    monitors, half of which are almost brand new? C'mon mason! <g>

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 23, 2010
    #15
  16. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:40:51 +1000, dorayme <> wrote:
    >
    > >In article <>,
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >> On Sat, 24 Jul 2010 08:15:00 +1000, dorayme <>
    > >> wrote:
    > >>
    > >> >In article <i2bvmr$151$-september.org>,
    > >> > "123Jim" <> wrote:
    > >> >
    > >> >> <> wrote in message
    > >> >...
    > >> >> >>> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    > >> >> >>>
    > >> >...
    > >> >> Pictures are good though! .I don't know why some people here have a
    > >> >> problem
    > >> >> with sheep and other animals .. guilty perverse desires? :-]
    > >> >
    > >> >The pictures are ...all either blurred or
    > >> >over-compressed.

    > >
    > >....
    > >>
    > >> Aww, c'mon dorayme, get a decent monitor.

    > >
    > >You mean your monitor corrects for what I am seeing on all my
    > >monitors, half of which are almost brand new? C'mon mason! <g>

    >
    > "New"? 800x600 new?


    Mason, are you OK? Since Ed accused you of being deranged, it is
    as if you have lemming like rushed to confirm the accusation?
    What is going on. What the hell has the size of the monitor or
    resolution got to do with me saying that many of my monitors are
    new and in good condition?

    > I don't run an art gallery, just a photo album, but...
    >


    And this has got to do with what? That since it is not for sale
    or for professional eyes, it is OK to dish up crap?

    > What *do* you see? Take the lamb photo as an example:
    >
    > http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    >

    I see a poor quality, blurry image (almost *certainly* due to the
    artifacts of jpg compression). Now, this can be due to poor
    camera management, poor image software handling and possibly and
    quite excusably combined with poor eyesight and perhaps even a
    terrible old monitor that cannot distinguish between a sharp and
    a blurry picture..


    > or pick one (other than my portrait) that you find lacking.
    >
    > or does my girl-friend rival for your affection bother you:
    > http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/18.html ?
    >

    Yes, this one is sharper. But notice the considerable increase in
    file size (a tell of less compression) compared to the one above.

    > or are you just challenging me to show this:
    > http://frontal-lobe.info/passport8-05.jpg ?
    >
    > calm down now..... calm down.....


    It is very hard to calm down now that you have finally published
    a clear and sharp photo of yourself. I am sending a team of
    trained sheep to hunt you down for being such an incredibly
    handsome deranged troll.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 24, 2010
    #16
  17. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > dorayme wrote:
    > > In article<i2bvmr$151$-september.org>,
    > > "123Jim"<> wrote:
    > >
    > >> <> wrote in message

    > > ...
    > >>>>> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    > >>>>>

    > > ...
    > >> Pictures are good though! .I don't know why some people here have a problem
    > >> with sheep and other animals .. guilty perverse desires? :-]

    > >
    > > The pictures are not good, they are all either blurred or
    > > over-compressed. As are so many, including the absolutely crucial
    > > one of his self portrait (which we have discussed before). In
    > > fact, I believe that he does this deliberately *as a cover* - you
    > > know, 'nothing remarkable about my portrait being blurry, all my
    > > pics are this way, I have nothing to hide' sort of sly reasoning.
    > > I further believe he is no other than Luigi and has undergone
    > > some kind of American transformation and I reveal and expose him
    > > thus.
    > >
    > > (Now, Ed, this last of mine is *deranged*)
    > >

    >
    > Actually, I thought the notion that Mason may be Luigi in some sort of
    > twisted transformation quite brilliant. Although, look, I don't think
    > crazy is something uniquely American. Well. I don't think so. But we
    > sure do seem to be capturing the market on crazy lately. Sigh.


    I was not suggesting that crazy had anything to do with American,
    it was just that Luigi came in the form of an Italian in Sweden
    whereas in Mason he is in a form of American in America (or a
    least I am supposing. Perhaps he is a kiwi, they are known to
    Australians to be disturbingly fond of sheep.)

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 24, 2010
    #17
  18. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    Ed Mullen <> wrote:

    > Actually, the images look good here (native display resolution of 1280 x
    > 1024 LCD). Not the /very/ best but surely more than "ok."


    You mean

    http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html

    looks "good"?

    There is no undesirable pixelation? Let me characterise
    "undesirable pixelation" (UP) to help along here:

    X is UP when for all normal purposes you can reduce the
    pixelation by *not* compressing so much.

    'Ah, but it is easy to not compress and have high quality at the
    expense of unacceptable file size.

    And let me characterise "unacceptable file size" (UFS) in *this
    context* to help along here:

    A file size is UFS if it is not a good idea to be putting such a
    big size on the web page for a pic that is UP when you can easily
    put a physically (px wide and height) smaller picture that does
    not have UP and still get Bob to be everyone's uncle.

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 24, 2010
    #18
  19. Jim S

    dorayme Guest

    In article <>,
    wrote:

    > The only Luigi I know was "Life with Luigi" -- a 1953 TV show.


    OK Mason, answer this question: Do you own or ever have owned a
    one man business? And this: Do you have a thirst to know more
    about Tasmania?

    --
    dorayme
    dorayme, Jul 24, 2010
    #19
  20. Jim S

    rf Guest

    "dorayme" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > In article <>,
    > wrote:
    >
    >> What *do* you see? Take the lamb photo as an example:
    >>
    >> http://frontal-lobe.info/farm/17.html
    >>

    > I see a poor quality, blurry image (almost *certainly* due to the
    > artifacts of jpg compression). Now, this can be due to poor
    > camera management, poor image software handling and possibly and
    > quite excusably combined with poor eyesight and perhaps even a
    > terrible old monitor that cannot distinguish between a sharp and
    > a blurry picture..


    Hmmm. I had only taken a passing glance at Masons site and was wondering
    what you were winging about :)

    On closer inspection however I do see some flaws. The picture quality you
    are complaining about becomes quite clear when the images are magnified a
    bit, using your favourite screen magnifier.

    Here are some screenshots at 4x magnification. In the thumbnail one, with
    the See Him caption particularly, it seems that there are more jpeg
    compression artifacts than there are real pixels. I can see "something". I
    don't know what though. Looks vaguely feline. On viewing the larger image I
    can clearly see that it *is* feline, but which framily?

    Warning, these images are big, .25 to .3 megabytes.

    http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/masonthumb.png thumbnails

    http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/feline.png The cat

    http://barefile.com.au/screenshot/masonlarge.png another full size picture
    rf, Jul 24, 2010
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    425
    Steve C. Orr [MVP, MCSD]
    Jun 3, 2004
  2. Andrew Bonney \(abweb\)

    Directing Domains

    Andrew Bonney \(abweb\), Nov 16, 2004, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    896
    Andrew Bonney \(abweb\)
    Nov 16, 2004
  3. Mantorok

    Error when re-directing word document

    Mantorok, Sep 26, 2005, in forum: ASP .Net
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    486
    Vadivel Kumar
    Sep 26, 2005
  4. Stu
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    8,016
  5. Replies:
    8
    Views:
    1,219
    Mick White
    Apr 19, 2005
Loading...

Share This Page