Directing to a picture

[Jim S]

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?

 

[Jonathan N. Little]

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).

 

[Jim S]

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]

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.

 

[dorayme]

Take a look at this:

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

Gee, Mason! Are you serious?

 

[dorayme]

....

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>

 

[Andy Dingley]

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.

 

[Jim S]

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>

 

[dorayme]

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]

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*.

 

[Jim S]

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

 

[dorayme]

....

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

Guess who the OP was?

 

[123Jim]

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? :-]

 

[dorayme]

....
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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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?

 

[rf]

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