Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

I have published a sample database, the Photo Catalog. I imported
about 300 photos into it, and they display just fine on my Mac.
However, when I go to the web address, either on my local machine or
on a Windows machine next to mine (on the same home network), I don't
see the photos. What could be going on?

Details - It's a Trial version, I'm only going to buy it if it can
actually do this one thing of publishing photos.
MBP 2 GBs RAM.
My personal web site on the same machine displays just fine on my
Windows machine.

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

In article
<03e586cd-8b20-4bc1-a414-f7b7cf563285@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
8string wrote:

> I have published a sample database, the Photo Catalog. I imported
> about 300 photos into it, and they display just fine on my Mac.
> However, when I go to the web address, either on my local machine or
> on a Windows machine next to mine (on the same home network), I don't
> see the photos. What could be going on?
>
> Details - It's a Trial version, I'm only going to buy it if it can
> actually do this one thing of publishing photos.
> MBP 2 GBs RAM.
> My personal web site on the same machine displays just fine on my
> Windows machine.

What format are the photos in?? For the web they need to be JPEG or GIF
format. They should also be only 72-100dpi since anything higher is a
waste of disk space and download time - if you need people to be able
to download higher resolution versions you can have a button that links
to the bigger file.

It's also possible that the trial version has some limitations, but I'm
not sure what they are.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

On Dec 18, 3:57=A0pm, demp...@actrix.gen.nz (David Empson) wrote:
> Chris Booth wrote:
> > Just noticed the following in latest Filemaker New...

Yes, I did get it to work, by importing the photos. Apparently I *had*
been referencing them. Now they work fine, as does IWP. Just a
secondary note, the videos that I post to the IWP are unacceptable
performance, as they are so slow on the Internet, they are unuseable.
On my machine and on the intranet of my home, they run fine. I'm now
exploring storing the videos on my ISP and referencing them from my
home hosted FMPro. Hopefully FM wont' require the video to be run
through it's own processor to display. My hope is that it will simply
redirect the users browser to the ISP site. That would make the most
sense. Next up if that doesn't work, is to see about hosting FMPro at
an ISP and displaying the videos that way.

Thanks for your thoughts in advance.

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

It's the actual dimensions that matter and not at all the dpi...

"Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
news:181220071249360421%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
> In article
> <03e586cd-8b20-4bc1-a414-f7b7cf563285@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
> 8string wrote:
>

> What format are the photos in?? For the web they need to be JPEG or GIF
> format. They should also be only 72-100dpi since anything higher is a
> waste of disk space and download time

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

In article , "Robben"
wrote:
>
> "Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
> news:181220071249360421%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
> > In article
> >
> > What format are the photos in?? For the web they need to be JPEG or GIF
> > format. They should also be only 72-100dpi since anything higher is a
> > waste of disk space and download time
>
> It's the actual dimensions that matter and not at all the dpi...

Unfortunately that's a misconception, at least partly due to an image's
dpi and x-y size both being termed "resolution".

The reality is that any graphics for on-screen use should only be
72-100dpi (assuming the images are displayed at 100% of their size,
which for web graphics they ALWAYS should be) - computer monitors can't
display any more than that, so using a dpi higher than that simply
bloats the filesize.

There is a ridiculous website around that tries to "prove" that the dpi
is irrelevant, but it's hopelessly flawed since all the example images
(supposedly at different dpi resolutions) are in fact all at screen
resolutions anyway.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

The misconception is on your part, I'm afraid...
It's well known in the graphics industry that people make this mistake all
the time.
Even in the industry itself some still make it :)
Some printers and people still make the mistake that they need high dpi to
get a sharp print, while in the end it's the dimensions that really
matter... dpi settings can always be changed if it really must, but you
can't invent pixels after the fact (though there is great blow-up software
of course...)

Maybe you're basing it on your wrong use of dpi in Photoshop or something?
(like very many do who don't understand how to adjust it without having
their dimensions change. If you don't, size will indeed change accordingly)

As a matter of proper conduct, I tend to agree to use low dpi for the web,
but the fact is it doesn't matter a single bit.

What you're saying is that your 3000 x 2000 px pics are taking less disk
space if you'd give them 72 dpi, while it's easy to prove they would take
just as much if you give them 10000 dpi. You just have to know how to set it
:)

Better agree to disagree or go read those "ridiculous" sites again... ;-)
They exist from more dependable sources as well you know

"Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
news:150120081300033490%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
> In article , "Robben"
> wrote:
>>
>> "Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
>> news:181220071249360421%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...

>
> Unfortunately that's a misconception, at least partly due to an image's
> dpi and x-y size both being termed "resolution".
>
> The reality is that any graphics for on-screen use should only be
> 72-100dpi (assuming the images are displayed at 100% of their size,
> which for web graphics they ALWAYS should be) - computer monitors can't
> display any more than that, so using a dpi higher than that simply
> bloats the filesize.
>
> There is a ridiculous website around that tries to "prove" that the dpi
> is irrelevant, but it's hopelessly flawed since all the example images
> (supposedly at different dpi resolutions) are in fact all at screen
> resolutions anyway.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

In article , "Robben"
wrote:

> The misconception is on your part, I'm afraid...
> It's well known in the graphics industry that people make this mistake all
> the time.
> Even in the industry itself some still make it :)
> Some printers and people still make the mistake that they need high dpi to
> get a sharp print, while in the end it's the dimensions that really
> matter... dpi settings can always be changed if it really must, but you
> can't invent pixels after the fact (though there is great blow-up software
> of course...)
>
> Maybe you're basing it on your wrong use of dpi in Photoshop or something?
> (like very many do who don't understand how to adjust it without having
> their dimensions change. If you don't, size will indeed change accordingly)
>
> As a matter of proper conduct, I tend to agree to use low dpi for the web,
> but the fact is it doesn't matter a single bit.
>
> What you're saying is that your 3000 x 2000 px pics are taking less disk
> space if you'd give them 72 dpi, while it's easy to prove they would take
> just as much if you give them 10000 dpi. You just have to know how to set it
> :)
>
> Better agree to disagree or go read those "ridiculous" sites again... ;-)
> They exist from more dependable sources as well you know

This is a load of utter nonsense, but this is not the newsgroup for it.
I have worked in the print industry for nearly 30 years, I know what
I'm talking about. As I said, it is a misconception caused by people
confusing "resolution" between dpi and x-y size.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

keyword "worked" I *still* work in it.

The proof is simple for anyone to do...

Take the same picture, save it from Photoshop w dpi 72
Take the same picture, save it from Photoshop w dpi 100000000...
The file size will be the same (if you have any idea how to adjust dpi in
Photoshop that is)

What you've been saying is that the dpi 72 will take less hard disk space,
and that is the utter BS, easy for anyone to prove.

It's always the eager "Helpful" Harries that are disinforming people the
most...

"Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
news:150120081814263058%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
> In article , "Robben"
> wrote:
>
> This is a load of utter nonsense, but this is not the newsgroup for it.
> I have worked in the print industry for nearly 30 years, I know what
> I'm talking about. As I said, it is a misconception caused by people
> confusing "resolution" between dpi and x-y size.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

To be *truely" helpful for those who will see..., check out the ppi,
dimensions and file sizes on these:
http://users.telenet.be/rodger/helpful

Then read Harry: "They should also be only 72-100dpi since anything higher
is a
waste of disk space and download time"

And you know what? The 72ppi version in the example is a bigger file size,
and not even on purpose.
So if anything, it's the other way round! :-)

Where is your "waste of space and download time"? (talking 'bout your posts
here, I guess ;-)

You will now say this was not what you meant, etc. Know your kind :)


"Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
news:150120081814263058%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
> In article , "Robben"
> wrote:
>
> This is a load of utter nonsense, but this is not the newsgroup for it.
> I have worked in the print industry for nearly 30 years, I know what
> I'm talking about.

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

In article , "Robben"
wrote:

> keyword "worked" I *still* work in it.
>
> The proof is simple for anyone to do...
>
> Take the same picture, save it from Photoshop w dpi 72
> Take the same picture, save it from Photoshop w dpi 100000000...
> The file size will be the same (if you have any idea how to adjust dpi in
> Photoshop that is)
>
> What you've been saying is that the dpi 72 will take less hard disk space,
> and that is the utter BS, easy for anyone to prove.
>
> It's always the eager "Helpful" Harries that are disinforming people the
> most...

It looks like the first annoying idiot in the FileMaker newsgroup joins
my killfile. You need to learn what your talking about before telling
people misinformation about your own misconceptions.

I strongly advise everyone to ignore this twit.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right

Robben wrote:
> keyword "worked" I *still* work in it.
>
> The proof is simple for anyone to do...
>
> Take the same picture, save it from Photoshop w dpi 72
> Take the same picture, save it from Photoshop w dpi 100000000...
> The file size will be the same (if you have any idea how to adjust dpi in
> Photoshop that is)
>
> What you've been saying is that the dpi 72 will take less hard disk space,
> and that is the utter BS, easy for anyone to prove.
>
> It's always the eager "Helpful" Harries that are disinforming people the
> most...
>
> "Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
> news:150120081814263058%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
>
>>In article , "Robben"
>> wrote:
>>
>>This is a load of utter nonsense, but this is not the newsgroup for it.
>>I have worked in the print industry for nearly 30 years, I know what
>>I'm talking about. As I said, it is a misconception caused by people
>>confusing "resolution" between dpi and x-y size.
>>
>>Helpful Harry
>>Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)
>
>
>

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

In article <478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Lou Newell
wrote:

> Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
> 8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right

It's VERY simple mathematics and common sense - an image with a
resolution of 300dpi has 3 times as many dots per inch as the same x-y
sized image at a resolution of 100dpi ... therefore the filesize HAS TO
be bigger since it's storing more information. QED. (The actual amount
of the filesize difference will depend on how many colours are being
used, etc.)

If you scale the 300dpi image's x-y size smaller, then you can get a
filesize as the 100dpi image ... but then it is a smaller image which
defeats the point.

Unfortunately many non-professional people confuse "resolution" with
"x-y size", partly because monitor makers and operating systems
preferences incorrectly say their screens have a "resolution" of
1024x768 or whatever when in reality they have a true resolution of
72dpi or 96dpi and a SCREEN SIZE of 1024x768. (A similar bit of
misinformation used in "megabyte" sizes - RAM makers use the correct
1024K while hard drive makers purposely use the incorrect 1000K to make
their drives look bigger.)

As I said, all of the ridiculous websites claiming the resolution isn't
relevant are garbage. When you download the "example" images they offer
you discover that they are ALL at the same screen resolutions of 72dpi
or 96dpi anyway, so of course the filesizes will be the same!

All professional print companies always insist on images being at
particular dpi resolutions for a very good reason (the actual dpi will
depend on various fators). Any so-called "print" professional who tells
you "resolution is irrelevant" should be avoided as completely hopeless
and utterly incompetent - you'll either get tiny little images,
over-bloated image filesizes, and / or garbage quality images that are
blurry or blocky.



Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

Check the proof in my last post and first learn to change ppi/dpi without
changing dimensions, like I said and like I did in the example.
If you use Photoshop, do a search on how to do that.

Harry is dead wrong and I *proved* it. He's just cowardly running away and
putting ppl in kill files...

See the "Repeating fields display" thread as well. He just has the wrong
attitude if someone knows what they're speaking about...

"Lou Newell" schreef in bericht
news:478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
> 8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right
>

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

BTW, you don't just have to believe my proof. Check the EXIF data of the
pictures for the ppi!

Changing the ppi without changing dimensions is no hack and perfectly
common, as anyone should know that even worked for 1 month in the graphics
industry. It DOES NOT have to automatically change the file size like most
people think, even after 30 years...

If you still disagree, then tell me what is wrong with the proof...??

"Lou Newell" schreef in bericht
news:478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
> 8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right
>

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

Oh LOL man, you really don't know the first thing about it, do you? :-))
You're the best proof of the great misconception I ever came across :-))

If you hadn't been so cowardly kill filing me, you could have checked my
examples and verified that the ppi is indeed way different, while file size
is the same (the 72ppi actually is bigger than the 3000! :)

"Helpful Harry" schreef in bericht
news:160120081831169165%helpful_harry@nom.de.plume.com...
> In article <478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Lou Newell
> wrote:

>
> It's VERY simple mathematics and common sense

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

Here's even more proof, also that HHarry is lying...

http://www.rideau-info.com/photos/mythdpi.html
http://www.scantips.com/no72dpi.html
http://www.nicholsonprints.com/Articles/dpi.htm

All these pictures DO HAVE different dpi setting, and are not "all 72
anyway", like HH loves to make you believe...

Case closed.
Now just put it in a msg that HH can read, so he just MAY smarten up in his
old day :)

"Lou Newell" schreef in bericht
news:478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
> 8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

PLONK

Robben wrote:
> Check the proof in my last post and first learn to change ppi/dpi without
> changing dimensions, like I said and like I did in the example.
> If you use Photoshop, do a search on how to do that.
>
> Harry is dead wrong and I *proved* it. He's just cowardly running away and
> putting ppl in kill files...
>
> See the "Repeating fields display" thread as well. He just has the wrong
> attitude if someone knows what they're speaking about...
>
> "Lou Newell" schreef in bericht
> news:478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>>Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
>>8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right
>>
>
>
>

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

What a hopeless bunch of stubborn closed-minded OLDIES :-)
Plonk away and stay dumb

"Lou Newell" schreef in bericht
news:478e2cff$0$22627$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> PLONK
>

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

In article <478e2cff$0$22627$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, Lou Newell
wrote:

> Robben wrote:
> > "Lou Newell" schreef in bericht
> > news:478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> >
> >>Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
> >>8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right
> >
> > Check the proof in my last post and first learn to change ppi/dpi without
> > changing dimensions, like I said and like I did in the example.
> > If you use Photoshop, do a search on how to do that.
> >
> > Harry is dead wrong and I *proved* it. He's just cowardly running away and
> > putting ppl in kill files...
> >
> > See the "Repeating fields display" thread as well. He just has the wrong
> > attitude if someone knows what they're speaking about...
>
> PLONK

Yep, he is a right plonker and best left in the killfile.

Helpful Harry
Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

On Jan 16, 2:51 pm, Helpful Harry
wrote:
> In article <478e2cff$0$22627$4c368...@roadrunner.com>, Lou Newell
>
>
>
> wrote:
> > Robben wrote:
> > > "Lou Newell" schreef in bericht
> > >news:478d7d57$0$22639$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> > >>Strange. I saved the same photo at 96 and at 300 dpi with file sizes of
> > >>8Kb & 35Kb respectively. seems that harry is right
>
> > > Check the proof in my last post and first learn to change ppi/dpi without
> > > changing dimensions, like I said and like I did in the example.
> > > If you use Photoshop, do a search on how to do that.
>
> > > Harry is dead wrong and I *proved* it. He's just cowardly running away and
> > > putting ppl in kill files...
>
> > > See the "Repeating fields display" thread as well. He just has the wrong
> > > attitude if someone knows what they're speaking about...
>
> > PLONK
>
> Yep, he is a right plonker and best left in the killfile.
>
> Helpful Harry
> Hopefully helping harassed humans happily handle handiwork hardships ;o)

I'm learning more and more everyday, had no Idea what PLONK was until
I went to wikipedia.org. What a wonderful tool!! (I've used
Photoshop since version 2.5.1 -- 1994 or 1995 -- and have had this
same "fight" every other day with peers.)

Re: Instant Web Publishing Problem FMP9v3- No photos showing.

Just tells ppl what an amazingly slow learner you are :)

But more AMAZING though how none of the big mouths ever come with proof to
the contrary, or even (can) tell me what's wrong with my proof and that of
others (except for lying about it like Harry).

That should tell everyone enough and also tells me you don't even know how
to change ppi without changing dimensions (which *is* a standard and needed
practice that *lots* of Photoshop users don't even know about or are
[obviously] confused by).

You could of course change your angle, but it's on record that I predicted
that :)

I suspect one or two at least have the intelligence to understand the proof,
but don't dare stand up to the ugly "cover my ass and I'll cover yours"
crowd here...?



"Eric" schreef in bericht
news:594c48ea-0b81-4f38-8f2c-283b072c2a1c@s8g2000prg.googleg roups.com...
> On Jan 16, 2:51 pm, Helpful Harry
> wrote:
(I've used
> Photoshop since version 2.5.1 -- 1994 or 1995 -- and have had this
> same "fight" every other day with peers.)