Some .jpg don't show up

Exactly Stefan, I absolutely agree.

Could you see the photos in the flash gallery I linked to?

Klaus1 wrote:
Which IMO was a non sequitur .

This not a competition. We are all here to try to help the OP.

This is business not personal! 🙂

I agree with your sentiment. I'll admit I was a little put off by his first response to me when I was only trying to establish a baseline from which to help.

Back on topic... this is a very strange issue. I've opened the sparrow in Photoshop and see nothing that stands out as unusual about it.

1. How fast is the OP's connection? Could it be timing out before the image can start to load?
2. The broken links may be cached in Safari. Dumping the cache... has it been tried yet?

Hi Stefan

truthfully I don't know exactly why you & I can't see the image directly - I imagine it's some issue with our isp's & the image site being blocked or unavailable somehow.


The extra letters are to access the site from http://www.coralcdn.org.nyud.net/ which provides content via cached versions stored all over the world wide web. I find that some sites, like adobe.com & indeed http://www.picturelacrosse.com/ where the photo in question is stored just won't load sometimes, & not because of dns issues. In those cases I add .nyud.net after the main address & things often breeze along fine.

Stefan Antwarg wrote:
This thread seems to be getting derailed. I really do not know which browser the other POTN forum members are using. But it's a huge forum and I imagine all the major browsers are being used. Anyway, if it is working for you guys, I'd like to find out what I can do to see it on my browser while browsing that forum.

Stefan

1. Have you tried it another browser to at least determine if there's an outside problem like DNS or ISP issues?

2. How fast is your connection? Perhaps something timed out before because of a slow connection to that server.

3. If #2, then perhaps broken links were cached in Safari. Has Safari's cache been dumped yet?

How fast is the OP's connection? Could it be timing out before the image can start to load?

A very good point, which was the next one I was going to make!

Like I said, the photo is 300 x 300 ppi. Usually photos for forum use are only 72 x 72 ppi, which uses much less bandwidth and is quicker to load. In fact, in my own forum, we have to use 72 x 72 ppi as otherwise the photos won't load.

Let's put that to the test:

This is 300 ppi link:

http://www.picturelacrosse.com.nyud.net/birds/potn/mix1/treesparrow-img_6413-030 608.jpg

Here it is with the resolution reduced to 72 ppi:

BINGO!

At 300 ppi it won't load here, at 72 ppi it does.

Stefan, are you on dial-up or broadband?

Did you give it a few seconds to load?

However, when you changed the ppi, you also changed the actual dimensions of the final image to 24% (216 x 144 pixels).

The original was 900 x 600 pixels at 300 pixels/inch.



Here is the same image at 900 x 600 pixels converted to 72 pixels/inch



If you use Photoshop and maintain 100% image size, changing from 300 to 72 pixels/inch only affects printed output.

My tests with uncompressed TIF files confirm that actual number of bytes in file does not change.


Sorry for the brief diversion.

When you are on dial-up or any slow server connection, things time-out and broken images get cached. Dumping the cache usually clears this up unless the slowness issue is chronic.

I also suggest seeing how a different browser handles the slow image loading.

Klaus mate

respectfully, I don't think that's why.... here's a copy of the original





and here's the smaller one you posted; they both show up just fine when hosted on my server, what do you see?

Klaus1 wrote:
BINGO!

At 300 ppi it won't load here, at 72 ppi it does.

Stefan, are you on dial-up or broadband?

Did you give it a few seconds to load?

It does load here at 300 ppi. The Apple forum just didn't automatically put in the HTML image code.

See my post above where I put in the HTML to get the images to display.

Doesn't matter... I still think we can agree the original issue has something to do with his connection speed.

Yes Andy, I see both but If you keep the original dimensions of 900 x 600 pixels you will end up with a photo 12.5 x 8.333 inches when changing the resolution to 72 ppi, like you just did!

And the moderators here will go nuts!

Klaus1 wrote:
Yes Andy, I see both but If you keep the original dimensions of 900 x 600 pixels you will end up with a photo 12.5 x 8.333 inches when changing the resolution to 72 ppi, like you just did!

And the moderators here will go nuts!

Respectfully, as I stated in my post, changing the ppi to 72 while keeping 100% of image size only affects printed output...

As you state, it's 12.5 x 8.333 inches... that refers to printed output.

See my post above where the original at 300 ppi and the copy at 72 ppi are identical on the screen.... same number of pixels, same number of bytes (slight file size variation only due to new JPG compression).

I think if the OP is having connection speed issues, he may not see either image in my post above.

Message was edited by: sparky67

ahh let 'em

I agree it's possible that some forum sites will balk at larger images, but the one in question isn't hosted by the forum, it's at http://www.picturelacrosse.com/ which for whatever reason, I cannot access except via http://www.picturelacrosse.com.nyud.net/ even with firefox or camino.... hmm actually now even the .nyud.net one won't load either.

I do think this one's a case of the server where the image is hosted either being blocked/unavaliable to some isp's or just err failing to respond.... possibly the image or site is cached usefully by some isp's & is why it shows fine for many people; dunno.

The original photo on the OP's forum was 3 x 2 inches, 300 x 300 ppi, 2.1 MB.

But we digress.

andyBall_uk wrote:
I do think this one's a case of the server where the image is hosted either being blocked/unavaliable to some isp's or just err failing to respond.... possibly the image or site is cached usefully by some isp's & is why it shows fine for many people; dunno.

You can test your theory by bypassing your ISP's DNS servers entirely...

1. Switch to the free OpenDNS.org service at http://www.opendns.org
(I've found them to be faster and more reliable than AT&T)

OR

2. Browse anonymously for free at http://www.the-cloak.com
(cloaking your IP has the side-benefit of using their DNS service as well)