Search results

People already upload a ton of images. The amount of added strain would really be trivial. Think about 5 MB remixes of songs, then try to tell me that far-less-common 50 KB banners would add a considerable amount of strain ;p

On that note, 'neer, which hotel are you staying in? ;p

Would it be too much to ask to have the options to sort by artist name or submission name? Personally, when I browse, I try to group by artists so I can have an easier time saving the files to my computer. It'd be a huge time savings for me personally to be able to sort by artist. In a...

Ooooh. No Google ads please. I often rant about things, Google ads pick up on the repeated words and figure "Hey! He's talking about this, he might want to buy it!" even though the common words are preceding by phrases like "want to kill anyone who owns a" and "wish to firebomb the twat who...

Christ, guys. Play the Crysis demo or something. Browse Wikipedia. Take a break from FA for a few minutes or hours :p

What I've come to realize is that if you upload a thumbnail that is 120x120 or smaller when you upload the picture, it keeps it. If you try to upload a thumbnail later, it always converts it to a JPEG which is ~5 KB in size. Grumble. This means my old images can have boring thumbnails, or...

My issue: Thumbnails currently resize, convert file types, recompress, etc. which can have rather ugly effects on custom-made thumbnails. Possible solutions: 1. Don't do it, or limit the cases where it does occur to prevent image butchery. 2. Post very clear and DETAILED restrictions...

This thread deserves some more love. This is very much a concern for me.

I like number theory stuff like this, so I'll do a bit of my own. I took a 1320x1600 picture by Fel, saved it at 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, and 50% zooms with 95% quality JPEGs each time. The results are as follows At 100% zoom it is 100% the image size and 100% the file size. At 90% zoom it is...

Nitpicky doesn't mean bad, and I'm not saying the wording should be confusing. Just that it should be consistent and accurate. I believe the admins to be reasonable people. The site does work pretty well for my purposes... it'd be faster if I could sort recent submissions by user rather than...

Aye, I realize that. Just being nitpicky because that's how one must be when dealing with TOS and legal things :p

"Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads." I think yer gonna have to take the "modify" part out. You don't censor the things when you resize them, but they are modified.

Then the TOS is poorly worded O.o; One paragraph says they will not change it beyond the tags, titles, etc and that "Fur Affinity will not modify or censor original uploads". And another paragraph says they have rights to "transmit, resize, store, display, publish or alter any submission...

Whoa, I didn't even think of that. That's a very good point. It totally does modify the original upload. So either a TOS wording change or a website function change would seem to be in order.

Bleh. Maybe I'm being too forward-looking. Maybe I'm just using the site the wrong way. Still... Meh. I guess this might be more useful to discuss a year or two from now, when bandwidth costs are lower, speeds are faster, displays are larger, and web standards are higher. As much as I'd like to...

1. Haha. Wow. Perhaps you don't get my redefinition. A scaled view is what FA currently has as the max resolution image, 1280 pixels wide. A full view is just that. FULL image, FULL resolution, FULL size. If people want to be scroll-conscious they can view the scaled images, like what FA does...

Are my letters displaying in the right color or something? I feel like people aren't reading them. 1. I do understand, and have stated, the issue that people have with scrolling from left to right. That is why this would only happen when people want to "Full View" or download something. It...

YES! YES! You're exactly right there! And that's JUST what FA is doing right now which I take issue with! It crunches all images to "fit to screen" where the width is 1280. That's exactly what this thread is about. It is tacky. It is miserable looking. And it seems some people do want it so they...

Maybe my problem is that I just don't use FA like other people do. I actually rarely view images in the browser itself. I download them into a folder on my computer corresponding to the artist who made the image, then view them at my leisure with full search capability. Auto-resizing, or zooming...

I'll repeat: "I'm not really an artist, but I post pictures which I've had commissioned and sometimes color things and post those in high resolutions if possible." Math dictates that using my 1623-pixel wide image rather than a 1280-pixel wide image results in a (1623/1280)^2 = 60.8%...