warbler bulgaria (1 Viewer)

[car sörensen]

hi coud sombody help me be shure one this warbler. photos taken late june 2023 near the cost. i saw some eastern olivaceous warblers in the same area but i am not shure they thse are all the same
pics 1-2 are same bird. not sure about the 3rd one. i have some more pics but cant find them

​

​

 

[car sörensen]

why didet the pichurs get into the page sorry about that

 

[Bewick]

Icterine would be my guess

 

[MacNara]

why didet the pichurs get into the page sorry about that

You posted massive full size pictures from a camera with a huge sensor - perhaps a Canon R5 or similar. The files are 5184 x 3888 pixels and about 8.5MB each after uploading. If you post like this, anyone who opens your three photos has to download 25MB which uses a lot of data which can be a problem on a phone, and for people with a slow connection, or with a small data plan, or in more remote locations.

I'm not sure what the actual maximum size at which BF will show the photos automatically, but when they are very big it just gives this empty icon. The previous version of BF from two or three years ago simply refused to accept very big photos - and I think they should go back to this system. Anyway, this icon system also means that if someone looks at you post one day, and then looks back the next day and wants to see again what your photos look like, they have to re-download the 25MB

Bird Forum doesn't automatically resize photos - you have to do it yourself before you post. Usually if you reduce the long side to 1000 pixels that is plenty big enough, especially if you crop out the bit with the bird in it before you downsize the picture. I have cropped and re-sized your first photo.

Then after you click 'Attach files' and upload the photos, click 'Insert' and then 'Thumbnail' as I have also done with your first photo below.

If you have several photos, then you can upload them all first with 'Attach files' and then choose 'Insert multiple' and then 'Thumbnail'.

If you attach a photo and do nothing, then BF posts a square crop from the centre of your picture (which some people think is a thumbnail, but isn't really because it only shows a part of your picture).

Even if BF allows your full size picture, I still think that using thumbnails is better for everyone since it minimizes the initial download size, and only people who want to look more closely will open the file and have to download the full size photo. I think of this as politeness to other users (but some people disagree).

Hope this helps next time.

PS If anyone reading knows the BF maximum for a full-size photo, please post here and let me know.

 

[01101001]

why didet the pichurs get into the page sorry about that

You could resize them (for example, I use resizepixel.com) to roughly 2000 x 3000 px or 2500 x 2500 px (a bit more is still fine: in your case, 3000 x 2251 is still OK).

Alternatively, you can also crop the originals without resizing them:




EDIT: I'd never known what 'Insert thumbnail' did--I've always used this (now is my first time doing it):

 

[MacNara]

You could resize them (for example, I use resizepixel.com) to roughly 2000 x 3000 px or 2500 x 2500 px (a bit more is still fine: in your case, 3000 x 2251 is still OK).

Alternatively, you can also crop the originals without resizing them:

EDIT: I'd never known what 'Insert thumbnail' did--I've always used this (now is my first time doing it):

I have a nice 27-inch screen attached to my Mac. I have it set to 3840 to 2160 pixels - which is 4K, the high definition TV standard where you can see the pores and pimples on the faces on screen - because that's what makes text legible (my screen can go higher). So the photos that car sörensen (OP) posted - 5184 x 3888 pixels - won't fit on my screen at full definition.

I have a Canon R5 which has the same resolution as car's original photos (actually slightly bigger). It's great because I can crop quite a lot and still print A3 with space to spare. And I could print advertising poster size that would look OK. But posting such huge photos here serves no purpose since no-one can see them at full-size even though they are forced to download this.

I think the last update of Bird Forum made a mistake, and I said so at the time but the programmers ignored me (and others who said the same).

There should be a limit on photo upload size - maybe 1500 or 2000 on the long side, though I think 1000 is enough (as used to be the case) if the photo is cropped to show only the birds in question. Secondly 'Full size' shouldn't be an option, only thumbnail - real thumbnails, not the squares which appear if you do nothing with your 'Attach files' photos. And then anyone who wants to see larger photos could click on the thumbnails.

As it it, if you just want to read the text to see what the post is about, which might involve seeing a few thumbnails, if the poster has put up 25MB of full-size photos you are stuck with downloading the whole lot. Which I think is wrong - not of the poster, unless they do it deliberately while knowing - but of the programmers who did this latest update to the BF code (a few years ago).