TexasCHLforum.com

RPB wrote: Being an oldster myself, I've discovered benefits to free photobucket.
<snip>
I'm still staying away from facing a book or booking my face though, but photos in a bucket are good, great backup if a hard drive motor dies, lightning eats a computer, you "upgrade" to Winders 8, etc etc etc.

If visiting a relative, I can show them my photos. even on their computer, no need to bring mine or copy all photos to a CD or flash drive to take along.. and in case of fire ... I still have my irreplaceable photos stored at the photobucket place. (Well, not my old wedding photos, after the divorce in 1970s, I'd just as soon they burned anyway )

Nice pictures.

My home computer is also my work computer, and company policy is we are not allowed to use work computers to access any social networking sites, so I'm not likely to plant my face in that sort of a book any time soon, either. (Now a paper book with real pages - I'm there regularly )

As for the whole "if hard drive crashes, or fire", etc argument - Has nobody ever heard of making backups? Guess I'm the exception - but having a coworker lose years of data thru a crash, and having had a backup save my bacon at least once, too, I'm an avid adherent - at least once every week, then locked in my second (fire rated) safe. External hard drives are just too cheap NOT to do backups regularly.

Although you do have a real good argument on a couple points - like being able to post full size pictures to the forum. But I'd have to think about it - I don't care how secure they say those servers are, there are folks who have access to them, and I'm kinda private so gonna have to work on that one. At least I've got food for thought now. Thanks for making me think.

OK, I'm going try this.

Hey!! It worked!! Thanks Pawpaw!!

eureka40 wrote:Hey!! It worked!! Thanks Pawpaw!!

You're welcome, but there were other people helping too!

Backups:
Yeah, when I controled the MSN servers from my house I had Goback as a minute to minute backup, and had "mirrored drives" and each week I ghosted/ and did a bit by bit copy of the entire contents to another set of mirrored drives which were normally "not seen" by my computer too, then copied those to a set of drives elsewhere not connected to that computer. But I've found that MANY people do no backup at all, the Law office where I used to work, they said it took too much time That changed after I started handling it.

"how secure they say those servers are"
Anything I post on Photobucket, I don't really care who sees or copies it anyway, but they do have privacy settings, but I only post what I want shared anyway, I have no photos of anything I wouldn't want my momma to see anyway.

and good luck finding who I really am anyway from any online "registration" none of my photos are "geotagged"
Signed:
Some OtherName
123 Anystreet
Yourtown USA.

"Security" starts with not giving out info in the first place.
In 1995, I once registered Norton product as "Mr. YourProgram TrashedmyHarddrive" with my real address.
I got snail mail JUNKMAIL in my street side mailbox addressed to "Dear Mr, Trashedmyhardrdive"
I quit giving out info.... yeah Maybe someone could figure the IP address I was on at the time .... good luck with that, you'd be amazed at how many ip addresses people have access to legally. McDonalds Wi-Fi is only a block away, City Library's WI-FI is 3 blocks ...RV park's WI-Fi has a weaker signal since it's farther, the various Motels' WI-FI and Airport's WI-FI is pretty good .... Those 25 mile WI-FI directional antennas and a rotator are great if your local ISP drops due to a hurricane or whatever.

OK, love the pics and all. Now question, my photo of my AR by the pool has the barrel cut off. No, it is not really cut off but the picture at Photobucket where I have it shows the full photo. When I put it here, it cuts off the right hand side. The original photo is 620x465 pixels. I simply copied the IMG line from the list on that site to here. So why does it cut off part of the photo? thanks

gwashorn wrote:OK, love the pics and all. Now question, my photo of my AR by the pool has the barrel cut off. No, it is not really cut off but the picture at Photobucket where I have it shows the full photo. When I put it here, it cuts off the right hand side. The original photo is 620x465 pixels. I simply copied the IMG line from the list on that site to here. So why does it cut off part of the photo? thanks

The issue is twofold. First, the image as imbedded is 1024x768 pixels, not 620x465. You can check that by going to the original post, right-clicking on the image, and selecting "Properties." I navigated to the image as displayed in PhotoBucket to confirm. 'Cause at 620 pixels wide, it should have shown full-width to pret' near everybody. Dunno why the image pixel sizes disagree.

The second is that the image itself isn't actually cut off. The Forum software has some built-in stuff--like the signature column on the right-hand side if using the default template--that, along with the monitor display settings of the person viewing the page, determines how much of an image is viewable. For example, looking at the page on a monitor displaying 1600x900, I see the entire photo. At 1280x1024, about half the flash suppressor is cut off; and at 1024x768, most of the barrel is gone.

While there are some who still use an 800x600 setting, it's pretty rare nowadays. For a 1024x768 setting, a good rule of thumb I've found is that images no larger than 650-700 pixels work fine.

Skiprr wrote:

gwashorn wrote:OK, love the pics and all. Now question, my photo of my AR by the pool has the barrel cut off. No, it is not really cut off but the picture at Photobucket where I have it shows the full photo. When I put it here, it cuts off the right hand side. The original photo is 620x465 pixels. I simply copied the IMG line from the list on that site to here. So why does it cut off part of the photo? thanks

The issue is twofold. First, the image as imbedded is 1024x768 pixels, not 620x465. You can check that by going to the original post, right-clicking on the image, and selecting "Properties." I navigated to the image as displayed in PhotoBucket to confirm. 'Cause at 620 pixels wide, it should have shown full-width to pret' near everybody. Dunno why the image pixel sizes disagree.

The second is that the image itself isn't actually cut off. The Forum software has some built-in stuff--like the signature column on the right-hand side if using the default template--that, along with the monitor display settings of the person viewing the page, determines how much of an image is viewable. For example, looking at the page on a monitor displaying 1600x900, I see the entire photo. At 1280x1024, about half the flash suppressor is cut off; and at 1024x768, most of the barrel is gone.

While there are some who still use an 800x600 setting, it's pretty rare nowadays. For a 1024x768 setting, a good rule of thumb I've found is that images no larger than 650-700 pixels work fine.

It has do do with the size of your browser window. Viewing the pics on this 1680x1050 monitor, the right side of many pics (my own included) are cut off when I use a smaller browser window. If I open the browser up to full screen, I see the whole picture.

BTW, this is in addition to what Skiprr posted above. He is perfectly correct.

thanks guys and I see viewing here at work the whole picture. I got the 620x465 by checking the photobucket properties and that is what it said it was. I see doing a property check here on the forum it is 1024x768 which is a standard size. Not sure why but will check into that one. I will have to look at the original pictures at home that I uploaded to Photobucket. It was at home I saw the picture "APPEARED" cut off. I run a 28" HD wide monitor at home at 1900x 1200 so it should have shown up. Here at work a much lesser monitor setup BUT in a two monitor wide seteup. I will open up my browser window some at home. I tend to run mutiple items so I reduce some of my windows. Much appreciated on the help everyone.