Does anybody know what the controls are for resizing an image please? I've tried an html script such as this:
<img src="http://www.starfirepublishing.co.uk/images/Les_Funambules.jpg" width="262" height="367">
but alas it didn't work. It's my guess – and it is just a guess, mind – that I'm overlooking something extremely obvious.
Looks like on my site. What does not work? The resizing? Or it doesn't show at all?
When I give just the path of the image, it is displayed at full size. For example, the image has been loaded to the Starfire website in order to display it on LAShTAL:
However, when I use HTML to define the width and height of the image, as set out in my first post, it doesn't work.
I could of course resize the image, load the resized image to the Starfire website, and simply load the path of the image in the LAShTAL post. But I think that it can be resized whilst posting on LAShTAL.
The image, by the way, is by Dietz Edzard (1893-1963), entitled 'Les Funambules', oil on canvas, 1961.
I don't see any images in either of these posts, for what it's worth.
The image "loaded to the Starfire website in order to display it on LAShTAL" shows a "broken image" icon, the html in the first post appears as... html.
I don't see any images in either of these posts, for what it's worth.
Thanks, ignant. That's very interesting, because although the HTML in the first post appears simply as a line of HTML – i.e., doesn't work – I can still see the image from the Starfire website that I posted, where you get the "broken image" icon..
Does anybody else get the "broken image" icon?
I see the image in the post above. It is displaying at 359x500. Its actual size is 525x733. The styling (CSS) on the lashtal site applies a 500px maximum height. If you add width="262" height="367 as display attributes within the img tag it's possible that the lashtal CSS overrides them.
You might try inline styling e.g.
<img src="http://www.starfirepublishing.co.uk/images/Les_Funambules.jpg" style="width:262px; height:367px;" />
So far there are no images that i can see in this thread. @jdes' post shows a rectangle, with a much smaller "broken image" icon.
Have our recent site revisions fuxxored image posts somehow?
I am going to attach an image here just to see if images generally are bollixed. It is a picture of my little dog Fifi reading a book, when she was much younger (and just learning to read).
Then i am going to paste one from a website (without any resizing voodoo).
And then by pasting the link:
All these methods still work.
@ignant666 I can see Michael's image and the one I posted but your's is a clickable rectangle with the filename and paperclip graphic inside.
I linked to Michael's image using his web address, but I see your image was uploaded to lashtal.com
On clicking the Fifi_reading.jpg your image opens.
(Edit:) I see both your Joker Utility belt images.
So i think image resiszing doesn't work any more, if it ever did (something beyond my ken/botheration).
Attempting to copy either Michael's image (after opening it a separate browser tab), or a link to it leans to the same results as above links by others: no image.
But perhaps you guys can see them, since you can see the earlier ones?
Copy'n'paste image (with this one, i see a rectangle with "broken image" icon after pasting, but posted, it appears as a text link, unlike the "Joker's Utiity Belt image" i copy'n'pasted above- maybe size?):
Copy'n'paste image link (here what i see after pasting is what appears in the post- a "broken image" icon):
But perhaps you guys can see them, since you can see the earlier ones?
I see the image by Dietz Edzard that I posted; the first full-size, the second smaller.
I see the image by Dietz Edzard that I posted; the first full-size, the second smaller.
Looking again, I see that the larger image is distorted; the secon, smaller image is not.
The lesson I draw from this is to resize the image before I post it to LAShTAL.
And expect that some people, or at least me, can't see it.
The only images i can see in this thread are the ones i posted.
Test
^ Posting the page link does not work ^
Copy image & paste here Works ...
Yes, i can see the image now.
Another test since you can now copy'n'paste that image, to see if i can:
Yes- something has changed since i tried to do so last night.
The Forum software plugin received an update from the developers in the last 12 hours. Glad it appears to have fixed the issue.
Owner and Editor
LAShTAL
i can see the image now.
He can see clearly now,
the rain has passed away.
He can see clearly now,
the rain has passed away.
"He can see clearly now / the rain has gone", surely?
Attached this via the 'Attach Files' which I've just noticed.
The Forum software plugin received an update from the developers in the last 12 hours. Glad it appears to have fixed the issue.
So it would be nice to know, Michael, if you resized the original image or let the code do the work.
So it would be nice to know, Michael, if you resized the original image or let the code do the work.
The only image I've attached so far using the new feature 'Attach Files' is the Spare picture in my last post. Let me attach 'Les Funumbules' again using this new fancy-dan gizmo:
This is the 525 x 733 that I first loaded from the Starfire website, and which some could see but others not.
Interestingly, it's smaller than the image I uploaded and has a border, suggesting that the software resizes the image and gives it a border.
I have seen everything anyone posted so far. But I can't seem to get my avatar online and I can't seem to copy pictures (for measuring). So, Michael, and I am sorry to bother you with this stuff, have you been able to resize it (online, not the original) to width="262" height="367"?
have you been able to resize it (online, not the original) to width="262" height="367"?
I have just resized the image:
This is the image before resizing:
They are displayed at the same size.
Ah, well, I am originally content to see what sould be seen, but both of your images appear as 214x299 to me. Meaning when I copy them that is the size they call to f.ex. Photoshop. Which is small and I guess never was your intention?
Which is small and I guess never was your intention?
Correct. Both images were loaded from my Desktop. I first posted the original, 525 x 733. I then produced a resized image in Photoshop to 262 x 367, and posted that. As you can see, both images appeared as the same size, with borders added.
The "original" itself came out of Photoshop. I came across the image online, out of alignment, and thus I realigned and trimmed the image.
Interesting looking update.
I ain't dead. yet.
93s
Mick that looks like a seated cat person.
Mick that looks like a seated cat person.
I don't think it is, though. It's more likely a masked woman reminiscing about her past as a funambulator, or tight-rope walker.
Who is the artist?
The artist is Dietz Edzard (1893-1963) who lived in Paris for the last few decades of his life. As a young man he fell in with a circus troupe, and was enamoured of a woman tighrope walker, learning to be a tightrope walker himself.