Looking at the page source, the photobucket tag doesn't include the width and height attributes, but the flickr tags do include those. If possible drop off the width and height attributes, or at least the height, from flickr and it should look exactly like the photobucket result.

GardenWeb is forcing width of the picture to fit into the new smaller frame, but it isn't scaling evenly if the width/height is included in the html source. If only the width attibute was there the height would scale properly, but leaving them both off is probably better.

I don't use either so don't know if you can remove that part of the flickr code, but hopefully this helps.

Chris

Contact gardenweb, with the changes they are making, it's possible they have changed how they handle pics.

Paul

AHHHHH !!! They squished my dancer . . . my post on the letter S looks like I am in the hall of mirrors at a carnival.

I'm tempted to edit that since it looks awful now. O.o

Thank you for the head's up Myrle, and for the insight into the code Chris.

I am going to play with the code a bit and see if I can't find the right width since it seems we cannot post 'big' pictures anymore.

TEST #1 - Medium 500 (375x500)

TEST #2 - Medium 640 (480x640)

TEST #3 - I took the script for Height and Width out altogether - leaving only the alt code for picture name when you mouse over tag.

AFTER PREVIEW - the third test shows the original picture in it's proper proportions, but the overall size is small.

TEST#4 - (with height and width script taken out again) - this is a picture that is larger than the Dancer picture. When I clicked properties on the original picture file on my harddrive Dancer is 1704 x 2272 pixels and TEST #4 original size is 4288 x 3216

IN CONCULSION - So it seems that pre-scripted width and height formats are a NO go even if your preset scripted width is within the maximum allowed by GW's forum format.

When you remove the height and width script it grabs the original dimensions of the picture from your uploaded file.

So with TEST #3 and TEST #4 you are seeing the true proportions of the picture undistorted, but the pictures are overall smaller. I think this might be where the CTRL+ or - key shortcut can help a bit by magnifying the web browser since the pictures are in the right proportion, but then your font is at about 72. Yikes !

Overall, this is the pits. Why the hell would they limit one of the BEST features of GW.

I didn't originally comment when the thread was started about the disapproval of the overall changes since for the most part they didn't bother me.

But this picture formatting change . . . definitely not cool . . . I might jump on board and submit a strongly worded letter myself.

::Grumbles::

Ludi

Oh Lord . . . I just thought about my orchid post . . .

I'm scared to even go look . . .

Overall, this is the pits. Why the hell would they limit one of the BEST features of GW.

==>>>>

what paul said.. crikey [the new crimminey...] ...

at the bottom of the page.. find CONTACT US ... click the button for TECHNICAL ISSUES ... copy/paste the link to this post..

AND ASK THEM ...

2 minutes tops.. and get a real answer..

ken

Thank you all for responding.

Chris, I tried taking out the height but couldn't make it work. The whole link disappeared.

Paul, I wrote Garden Web the other day about how the majority of people on the Hosta forum were unhappy with the change. I gave them the link to the thread and asked them to read it. I never got a reply. This was before the squashed pictures. The "Whoa" thread was begun on Feb. 11. The X-Y thread was Feb. 11. The Z thread was Feb. 13. I added pictures to those threads and would never have done it if they looked squished. Maybe they've been trying to alter something and in doing that caused this more recent problem. What really bothers me is that ALL the pictures I have ever posted going back who knows how far are altered in a way I am truly unhappy with. I know when I was first buying hostas pictures were few and far between. I had to go by description. I hope that all of our pictures help new Hosta nuts see what they are buying and help them in some way. Now they will be looking at these awful, distorted pictures.

Ludi, you did a great job of trying different things to make it come out right. I had also tried smaller pictures but for some reason they came out like yours did. I suppose we could up load a full sized picture on flicker and that would show up more like we want it to. That doesn't answer the problem of all the past pictures. I guess by now you've seen that your beautiful orchids looks like someone stepped on them.

Ken, I'll take your advice and write to Garden Web again. Like I said I got no answer before but I'll try again.

McTavish, make sure you take out the whole part about width and height. For example if it has width="375" height="500", take it all out so there is only a space left - don't just leave one of them empty or nothing will show.

I like the way the pictures are made smaller as it displays better on my screen that way, and if I want to see it bigger I can click on it to see it full size. But they are screwing up the scaling part and need to fix that.

Oh boy, I see what you mean. I was not seeing the distortion so much until today. Is this a recent development? And retroactive to ALL the photo posts? I'm glad I saw the original orchid pictures, Ludi, and Myrle I know how precise you are with rendering photos of your plants. Very discouraging to have this happen. I thought I was safe using Flickr. I just uploaded 3 photos to HostaLes' thread about Dancing Queen/Fire Island, suppose I should check it out.

And, writing to Technical Support seems very much in order.

Mocc, good luck on having them answer you. I've written to them twice with no reply. Very discouraging. The problem is not Flicker. It's this new format. For some reason it is only affecting the pictures from Flicker and Image Event (that I have seen). I checked a few other forums and the Flicker pictures are squashed there too. It did not happen when the format was first changed. It was a few days later. This could possibly be because of complaints and they are trying to fix it? I don't know.

I guess some, not the majority as far as I can tell, like the pictures smaller. They are willing to click on those they want to see larger and wait to see them. Personally, I just want to scroll down and see the pictures. If there needs to be some limit on size I would appreciate that we be informed. What bothers me the most is that all the older pictures that we have posted now appear squashed.

Chris you were right about taking out the dimensions to correct the distortion. I was trying to remove size from the Flicker site which wasn't working. I have to take it off once I've pasted the link here, on the forum. This is what the above squashed picture looks like with the dimensions removed. Ludi did some tests above that are very informative. Her last one of the leaf was an original picture of 4288. My picture below was already saved at 1000. They look the same to me. Does this mean that this is the largest pictures they want on the site?

The pictures that I post from Photobucket are not distorted, but they are smaller. I inspected these photos. Photobucket pics are 1024x768 normally. When I post them under the new format they are automatically resized to 400x300. Much smaller but not distorted.

Frankly, I'm not surprised that they are scaling back pics. It was unusual to find a forum that doesn't do that, because of the amount of space it requires. The problem as I see it is that they've now made a mess of all the work that has been done before and archived on the site. I'm sure it's difficult to devise software that takes into account the different photo storage sites, but they've really screwed this up.

Steve

and do give GW Tam some time..

during a major changeover .... i might have to think they might have bigger issues .. that they are dealing with ...

who knows.. i have NEVER.. NOT gotten an answer.. sooner or later ...

ken

It wouldn't think it would make any difference on the storage requirements, as the photos are hosted on Photobucket and Flickr, not gardenweb. I would think it has more to do with making their site work on phones and small tablets. Otherwise, why would they do this massive change? There has to be a business motive.

bk

I see the logic Steve. If they want the pictures at a miximum size I would certainly do that. I prefer it the old way though. I find it too time consuming to click on every picture that looks small to me and wait for it to get bigger. The photobucket pictures usually look the same so it's a waste of time. The once saved to other places do sometimes look bigger, depends. Maybe I'm becoming the exception, I don't use I phones or notebooks to see the pictures - just my computer that easily accomodates the larger size.

Ken, you're right (as usual). I should give Garden Web more time to answer and fix the problem. We'll see what they do. Myrle

Let me see if I can post tonight.
Testing testing.

i got a reply from GW ....

they are dealing with a multitude of other problems ..

and high on their list.. but NOT at the top.. are the peeps in the hosta forum.. and their pic addiction ...

they are going to get to this.. and figure something out..

and they ask your patience ...

ken

You got it Ken. I'm glad they are working on it since this forum has been great. Hosta addiction, picture addiction, thankfully it's nothing worse.

tamma bamma jamma.. says they arent squashed anymore ...

seems so above..

congrats.. your lives can go on now.. lol ..

ken

Squashed, squished, deformed, whatever, it seems to be changeable. That is a neat feature, that it can be retroactive.

But also, if you are seeking to compare photos from past posts, it becomes impossible with the retro feature.

Totally unrelated to GWeb, I think about Brave New World where they can "erase" the existance of some human being, or at least modify the way s/he affected the world. You might also wish to view the movie starring Warren Beatty as a young man, PARALLAX VIEW.....spooky.

Sorry that I digress but my mind goes in circles, and down rabbit holes, and is always cooking up some idea.....like growing hosta commercially in south Florida! :)

Moc....'Parallax View'....Wow, THERE'S a reference! A security company that hires 'socially unacceptable' people to assassinate politicians...You're right! TOTALLY unrelated to GWeb, but I'm glad you mentioned it; Thanks for the blast of nostalgia, my friend!

Don B. (Now looking up from the rabbit hole I just fell into)

Thank you Garden Web. Our pictures are as they should be, worth looking at.

Yeehaaaaa, That cover picture for the VCR is nice looking, shaped right, and so are the pictures above uploaded by McTavish.

Like Voltaire said in his CANDIDE: all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds.

Muy bueno, tres bien!

Here is a link that might be useful: Candide: Best of all possible worlds