That captured the color nicely. I have the same learning curve problems with cameras. Looks like you've got the hang of it.

More, more! Sadly conifer pictures are like crack to me. I must get my daily fix. Your garden pics always provide a great stress relief from the day. Thanks. =)

Oh shoot, I didn't even catch that!

Yes, GOODBYE photobucket!

Color looks right on with my plant as well. Mine doesn't get a whole lot of sun though. I find that yellows and golds are the toughest to capture thats why you see so many edited photos.

nice pic dave

werent we all in a stir a few years back.. of how GW claims ownership of pix posted in this site???

ken

Thanks all. This photo taken on a cloudy day. What you see is never edited.

I never had a problem with the GW ownership. After all I am using their website for free. I guess for those who want to grow them in their back yard only for themselves to enjoy seems like a waste. I got 1000's of photos out there for anyone who wants to enjoy them. Never any issues. I have a lot of requests from people asking if they can use a photo of mine for this or that.

Always...just help yourself and thanks for asking.

Dave

The pictures on GW are now a lot smaller (due to the new narrow width limit of the threads?)

600px is now the max photo width instead of the previous 1024 and 1200 (above which it did cause horizontal scrolling) So just like the new PB it's impossible to publish photos in the size you want. I hope this will be addressed in time with the bedding in of the new look or we have lost a big amount of clarity and it'll be a case of right click 'View Image' on all the pics to see them at their correct size and resolution.

This downscaling to 600px happened since yesterday so I hope it is temporary.

To see the detrimental effect check out Will's recent garden shots and how difficult it is to see the plants now.

Here is a link that might be useful: Will's pics

This post was edited by severnside on Tue, Feb 12, 13 at 18:16

Yea! that sucks.

I wonder why all these changes for a downgraded format. And they... PB & GW call them upgrades.

Dave

This post was edited by dcsteg on Tue, Feb 12, 13 at 18:56

The ads win.

A larger picture and the text that stretched with it bled into the ads soooo, ipso prestso (as someone likes to say) the pix lose and the ads win.

tj

The ads were on top of the pics yesterday so I went for Adblock, that backfired for GW. Now the smaller pics make it pointless to post pics of anything other than approximate suggestion.

Meanwhile over at PB (where we could at least host onto GW at the right size until today...)

Hurry! We're only 20 days away from moving over to the new site

Facepalm.

Don't forget to click the pic to blow it up! When it opens in a new window try to click it again.

Only if they are uploads to GW. Otherwise if you click it takes you back to the host site each time. Clicking to open a new tab on each and every picture when all we had to do was read and scroll isn't exactly an improvement.

I've contacted GW but have had no reply yet.

This post was edited by severnside on Wed, Feb 13, 13 at 6:22

My guess is that the down-scaling of photo size was intended to address user's complaint's about ads and text overlapping with the photos.

At least on my computer, the problem is not so much the ads, but those new strips running up and down either side of the page. The presence of these strips effectively reduces the screen size dramatically and as a result, photos, ads, and everything else must be squeezed into the remaining room. Even the ads are not present inside of the strips (again, this is on my computer - same for you?). In essence, they are leaving a third of the screen area blank, and shrinking everything down to fit into the remaining two thirds. No wonder pictures become hard to see.

I sent GW a message to complain about this, you may want to do the same. The strips are aesthetic, not functional (and they don't receive any income from them), so if enough folks complain, maybe they'll get rid of them. Photos are a lot of what drives people to GW pages; if they become permanently smaller/more difficult to view, that's got to hurt page viewership.

This post was edited by maple_grove on Wed, Feb 13, 13 at 13:34

I hear you on all that MG.

I contacted them yesterday asking for reassurance that the downscaling was temporary and that I understood that they were in mid process of the new look.

No reply.

If it stays I won't bother adding pictures where I've worked to get sharp focus as they probably won't get viewed as such.

Aggravating as it might be - remember no one pays anything for using GW- you get what you pay for. Would you rather there be no place like this at all? Or maybe you would like to pay for it out of pocket? Most would not, and this would doom it certainly for sure.That would be a great loss of knowledge. So what if you don't get the best pics- I'm thankful that I can glean the best info from all that is presented here. And it is one of the most civilized forums on GW, some of the others are nothing but snake pits.

So what if you don't get the best pics

Crass. But you're right, this isn't the place to try and post them.

Dave, you and I have the same camera. Canon Power Shot SX260 HS. I still have a lot to learn on mine. It's a great camera though for the price.
I too like the option of downloading pictures through the Browse button. Saved me the money I was going to give to Photobucket.
Mike

testing...... Thanks for the tip on posting pictures. These are from Fri-Sat noreaster south of Boston.I lost a few but hard to see those dwarfs under the 3 big ones that fell......

This post was edited by KSC1 on Thu, Feb 14, 13 at 13:43

Congrats on your new camera, Dave.

I see that all images are now displayed at 550 pixels wide, changed from the 600 pixels mentioned by Severnside. Viewing images at 200% works for me. Then whaas' pine still looks nice and crisp and I can peer into botann's woods.

Not pretty, KSC1!

This post was edited by IshCountryGal on Thu, Feb 14, 13 at 15:36

I don't have any complaints. Smaller size speeds loading times. Click on pic for a larger version.

I hate it myself, but I suppose you can't make everyone happy. The photos are small(like 1/2 or less of the screen), and the ads create this huge panel almost half the screen that is blank(mercifully) when the ads finish their business.

Frankly I'd rather pay a few dollars a month then be blitzed with advertising. The average US citizen will spend TWO YEARS of their lives listening/watching/readin advertising. Sickening.

If I can interject another thing thought here about posting pictures, for people like me who do a percentage of my viewing at work, using WB to post pictures is a real plus because many of the corporate IT groups restrict viewing of sights like photobucket as non-essential work sights. So many of the beautiful pictures you guys post, I can't see until I am at home in the evenings.

But now I can see some of them at least :-)

Mark