Important Image Hosting Changes at Fark Please Read

[ennuipoet]

Mike popped up in the PSAEF today explaining Fark’s new image hosting plan

http://www.fark.com/comments/6?hours=48&hoursago=48&startid=84885622&fpost=uwWipm7WAy2bBGQh7eTmaAvikOdp1yeDn0HDbOd#c84885905

basically, when you post an image link in a thread, Fark will rehost the image on their server, scaled and in decreased resolution. This will have the threads load faster, particularly on mobiles. I think this was noticed a while back by some behavior on the FSM.

You guys should pop over and read through the conversation and add your opinions. While most PShops don’t really need hi-res images, our stuff sometimes does. So, now is the time to comment.

[sleeping]

hmm, from what he’s saying it will resize them automatically too? Then we’d probably be better off feeding it the original size images directly rather than a resized one from flickr etc – if you use a resized one it will get resized twice….

[Elsinore]

I’m asking for some clarifications as well.

[Choc-Ful-A]

Mike clarified that the code to re-size the image would respect the JPEG quality level used in the posted image. So, for instance, if you post a 1700×1800 JPEG saved with compression set to “85%”, then the Fark cache re-hosting code would re-size it to 850×900 using the same compression setting of “85%” in the process.

Also, he clarified they they are using Image Magick, as well established program for the image manipulation. So if you want to see how it will work, you can visit the Image Magick website to read the docs or install a copy of the code and resize some images to test it.

[Elsinore]

Ok to clarify, if you’re posting an original size image (Fark sized), Fark will not resize, so you won’t have to worry about double compression. For example, I generally only upload 800 pixel max size images to Flickr, then I post the originals (which is already Fark sized) to Fark. As I understand it, nothing should happen with resizing in that scenario. If you post a 4000×3000 image, then yes, Fark will resize to Fark size.

However: Be aware if Fark resizes for you, it will strip EXIF data, in part to minimize final file size. **If maintaining your EXIF data is important, upload and serve out only Fark-sized images (currently 850×1500 max pixel dimensions and 250-300k file size)

[Choc-Ful-A]

That makes sense, meaning that image which aren’t too big are just copied “as is”. But it’s worth noting that even in those cases, Fark will make a copy and host is on their servers. That’s good news for people with limited or unreliable hosting services.

But it also means you won’t be able to tell how many people saw your image in a contest by checking your hosting service traffic reports.

[Yugoboy]

It also eliminates the depressing sea of red x’s when looking back at old contests.

Given that I’m now in the habit of resizing to 850, I appreciate that they won’t compress even more.

Question: how does this impact people who are used to linking their images to larger sizes? Should they start making the l ink separate from the image?
I ask because when I do photoshops, I tend to make desktop sizes to link to, and re-size for hosting.

[Elsinore]

If you’re linking the picture back to another site (e.g. with Flickr, the TOS requires you to link back to the photo page on Flickr, or if you’re linking directly to a larger version), then you’re fine. It’s just the displayed image itself that’s cached and served out from Fark; links aren’t touched in that process.

However, Choc-Ful-A is right that hosting site stats will be affected.

[Choc-Ful-A]

FWIW, I think hosting images on Fark is a big win overall. If nothing else, not getting all the browser cookies from every hosting site on the planet makes me happy. I have my browser setup to ask me each time a new webserver tries to set a cookie.

[Elsinore]

Agreed. And it will speed things up, too.

[ennuipoet]

Agreed. And it will speed things up, too.

This!

[Elsinore]

Question for CauseISaidSo: Will this change break your code for determining recycled images?

[CauseISaidSo]

Yep. I mentioned that back when I first noticed it. Not only does the same image posted in different threads get a unique URL, I think the URL for a given image also periodically changes.

It also breaks the pop-to-original/larger-image feature on Bibliostats. Clicking on images now takes you to a Fark 403 page.

[ravnostic]

Yep. I mentioned that back when I first noticed it. Not only does the same image posted in different threads get a unique URL, I think the URL for a given image also periodically changes.

It also breaks the pop-to-original/larger-image feature on Bibliostats. Clicking on images now takes you to a Fark 403 page.

I’ve decided I don’t like this change. 🙁

[Elsinore]

Yep. I mentioned that back when I first noticed it. Not only does the same image posted in different threads get a unique URL, I think the URL for a given image also periodically changes.

It also breaks the pop-to-original/larger-image feature on Bibliostats. Clicking on images now takes you to a Fark 403 page.

well crap. Is there a way to scrape for img src addresses rather than the displayed image addy?

[Author]

Posts