Thanks DJ

I'm not sure if it's just me - that's why I was asking - to see if anybody else is experiencing the same thing.

Your images have always done it............

For most posts the thread opens and the pics appear instantly (at forum size) and I then click to see them larger.

Yours load really slowly - about 3 feet wide and then (once they've all loaded) display at forum size (same as everybody elses) with the option to click for larger.

The end result is exactly the same...it's just I have to wait for the huge images to load and then resize.

Hope that makes sense ?

That's odd, I could maybe see why my images done that if it were some of my older posts (landscapes etc) as I used to upload images nearly half an mb For me, my latest post takes less than a second to display and really should be much the same for everyone else that is on a decent broadband connection. I'm not sure Phil but would be interesting to know if other people are having the same prob.

Try clearing out your temp internet files cookies etc see if that helps, also, which web browser you using?

I have always have the same problem too DJ, when try to look at your images, they take much longer to load, than most on here. Not sure if it is the amount of images or size of images, but I experience the same as Phil, take ages to load and they are very big, and then they resize to forum size. There is someone elses that do it too,so it isn't just yours, will try and work out whose.

Sometimes DJ's images take longer for me to load too - sometimes his server crawls for me. I guess he is on a shared host - which means he is at the mercy of everyone else on the server... if the server is busy it will impact his sites speed, too.

Regards to image sizes in general - it is not always physical size, a 'smaller' image can have a large file size if for example it has a lot of detail or even sharpening applied. Eg:

Sharp/more detailed image 243K:



Softer/less detailed image 113K:

You could have applied normal sharpening to the second pic and reduced the file size below 113k without losing any noticeable quality. You have oversharpened that image and probablly saved it at 100% quality.
Point is, it's how you save your images for web -image dimensions you want to retain Vs quality and size of file.

Yes, I'm on a shared hosting Linux plan with Godaddy (european servers)and have only complained to them once since 2007 about speed issues. Even though some of you only have this problem with my images, it could be your own internet connection that is contributing to and causing the bottleneck?

If it's any help, I have always had the issues in the UK and the USA

My internet connection is super quick though, cause I live with a complete computer and tech geek, so things like slow internet wouldn't be tolerated.

Maybe if you tried hosting a pic on somewhere like Flickr, then you could see which one loads quicker, your webhost or a Flickr hosted one??

Ok, here are two identical images ( 1380px wide) one on Flickr and one from my web host.





For me, the Flickr one took the longest to fully load untill it was cached then after a second preview both appearred instantly.

How is it for you Moonie?

Both were saved 70%, and yes the first one was over sharpened, purposely - to demonstrate my point. Which is the sharper/more detailed an image is, the file size will be higher on a like for like quality setting.

The problem with shared hosting is you never know when there will be a peak/surge. It's not always to do with traffic - sometimes some idiots/script kiddies, run scripts that can bring a server to it's knees. Also, as time goes on, the more accounts get put on a server the more scripts get added etc.

But that's shared hosting and what you'd expect (I should know, I've been through enough of them ).

If it matters the next step up would be a virtual server (with a good company) and then a dedicated server... but for most people shared hosting is fine.

Far to expensive for me Azz, I'm just a hobbyist and do not make any money from my sites and would only consider virtual or dedicated if I was raking it in

I'd much rather host them myself and may do so in the future.

I've now signed up with Hostgator with a better deal than Godaddy, I've read loads of reviews and they seem the prefered choice for hosting. Their control panel is certainly a massive immprovement over Godaddy's control centre which is very difficult to navigate as there are loads of pages to go through where you want to go. Their site is very clean as well unlike godaddy's which constantly bombard you with ads.

I will at least try them for a month before I cancel my godaddy hosting account.

Sorry, for not answering before can't see the Flickr image, hope your new webhost works better for you .