Hello helpful people!
I have been using the image and image assist modules for images on my sites. I've had some problems with them, and when I looked at the issues list for image I was not thrilled, there are a lot of them. It seems like everyone in the local user group (NYC) uses CCK imagefield with imagecache instead for their sites. I'm thinking I should just go ahead and switch. What's the best way to go about it? Will uninstalling the modules cause further problems? Will I have to recreate all the image content?
I have simply images in posts, and some image galleries.
Jean Gazis www.jeangazis.com www.boxofrain.us
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." - André Gide
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:05:23 -0400 "Jean Gazis" jgazis@gmail.com wrote:
Hello helpful people!
I have been using the image and image assist modules for images on my sites. I've had some problems with them, and when I looked at the issues list for image I was not thrilled, there are a lot of them. It seems like everyone in the local user group (NYC) uses CCK imagefield with imagecache instead for their sites. I'm thinking I should just go ahead and switch. What's the best way to go about it? Will uninstalling the modules cause further problems? Will I have to recreate all the image content?
I have simply images in posts, and some image galleries.
Very recently I've installed gallery for gallery2 and Image. The former because gallery gives a lot of options for uploading images, because it support video and embedded content from other sites (flickr, youtube).
I used Image on my personal site because I need a very clean method to build up simple galleries.
I find that tweaking the layout of Image is much easier than tweaking gallery + gallery2.
What do you think the shortcomings of Image are?
I have a site in Drupal 4.7 (blog.shostak.net) where the images just stopped working - the ones that are there are fine, but I can't add new ones, I just get tons of errors. On another site I fixed that by resetting to defaults, but I don't want to reset the image sizes to default there. I've left it alone for now because I planned to upgrade to D5 and change the theme anyway.
On another site (urbanorganic.jeangazis.com), which is a multisite install, I have images there but can't add new ones. The files are there, but the images don't appear. If I use image import, it duplicates the preview and thumbnails. Something is getting messed up in the path.
I also have a site where I really need it to be easy for users to upload photos, and it doesn't look like imagefield and imagecache are the answer to that, either. I might try one of the gallery mods. I've only used the gallery that comes with image.
So it seems like the module has a reputation for being buggy, and is going wrong for me in more than one way, so I'm interested in alternatives. I'd prefer that they don't require custome theming, though, because I haven't gotten into that yet.
Jean
On 8/28/07, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo mail@webthatworks.it wrote:
On Mon, 27 Aug 2007 20:05:23 -0400 "Jean Gazis" jgazis@gmail.com wrote:
Hello helpful people!
I have been using the image and image assist modules for images on my sites. I've had some problems with them, and when I looked at the issues list for image I was not thrilled, there are a lot of them. It seems like everyone in the local user group (NYC) uses CCK imagefield with imagecache instead for their sites. I'm thinking I should just go ahead and switch. What's the best way to go about it? Will uninstalling the modules cause further problems? Will I have to recreate all the image content?
I have simply images in posts, and some image galleries.
Very recently I've installed gallery for gallery2 and Image. The former because gallery gives a lot of options for uploading images, because it support video and embedded content from other sites (flickr, youtube).
I used Image on my personal site because I need a very clean method to build up simple galleries.
I find that tweaking the layout of Image is much easier than tweaking gallery + gallery2.
What do you think the shortcomings of Image are?
-- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it
-- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:23:20 -0400 "Jean Gazis" jgazis@gmail.com wrote:
I also have a site where I really need it to be easy for users to upload photos, and it doesn't look like imagefield and imagecache are the answer to that, either. I might try one of the gallery mods. I've only used the gallery that comes with image.
I'm using it with 5.2... I used it with 4.5 or 4.7 and uploaded some hundreds of images with no problem. Yep... the upload part is hard to fine tune (permissions? quota? taxonomy?) So your main problem was uploads and erratic behaviour, is it?
So it seems like the module has a reputation for being buggy, and is going wrong for me in more than one way, so I'm interested in alternatives. I'd prefer that they don't require custome theming, though, because I haven't gotten into that yet.
Well my problem was css were scattered in gallery2, block, gallery etc... and having something that look good in drupal *and* in gallery as a stand alone app was not that fun + some repetition not perfect integration in "messages". I'm not saying that it was terribly hard or impossible... just it was boring and I think hard to maintain.
My concern is that while I find positive Image module looks like a page node... maybe it looks like a page node too much, users should have "less" freedom.
Just first impression... actually I was interested in your opinion to standarize/invest in one module to build up galleries.
These are the problems I'm having with images on one site: the images, thumbnails, and previews are in the files/images directory. They are in a gallery, but in the gallery view it shows all the info, but does not show the actual image at any size. The individual image node view is the same. When I inserted the images into other page nodes, some appear and some don't, but I can't see any difference between them.
http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/node/2 contains: <img src="/files/ur1/images/red-williams-pears.jpg" class="framert" alt="red pears">
http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/node/1 contains: <img src="/files/ur1/images/1-basil.jpg" class="framert" alt="fresh basil">
The first image is visible, the second shows the alt text or a missing icon depending on the browser. I can't figure out what's different. I did not change any settings in the image module, and resetting to defaults just in case didn't do anything.
In addition, when I tried to use the "image import" feature, it made duplicate copies of the thumbnail and preview and put them back in the original directory where it was importing _from_.
Any ideas?
Jean
On 8/28/07, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo mail@webthatworks.it wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:23:20 -0400 "Jean Gazis" jgazis@gmail.com wrote:
I also have a site where I really need it to be easy for users to upload photos, and it doesn't look like imagefield and imagecache are the answer to that, either. I might try one of the gallery mods. I've only used the gallery that comes with image.
I'm using it with 5.2... I used it with 4.5 or 4.7 and uploaded some hundreds of images with no problem. Yep... the upload part is hard to fine tune (permissions? quota? taxonomy?) So your main problem was uploads and erratic behaviour, is it?
So it seems like the module has a reputation for being buggy, and is going wrong for me in more than one way, so I'm interested in alternatives. I'd prefer that they don't require custome theming, though, because I haven't gotten into that yet.
Well my problem was css were scattered in gallery2, block, gallery etc... and having something that look good in drupal *and* in gallery as a stand alone app was not that fun + some repetition not perfect integration in "messages". I'm not saying that it was terribly hard or impossible... just it was boring and I think hard to maintain.
My concern is that while I find positive Image module looks like a page node... maybe it looks like a page node too much, users should have "less" freedom.
Just first impression... actually I was interested in your opinion to standarize/invest in one module to build up galleries.
-- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it
-- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 00:03:08 -0400 "Jean Gazis" jgazis@gmail.com wrote:
http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/node/2 contains: <img src="/files/ur1/images/red-williams-pears.jpg" class="framert" alt="red pears">
http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/node/1 contains: <img src="/files/ur1/images/1-basil.jpg" class="framert" alt="fresh basil">
It seems they are not there at all... not just they don't appear.
In addition, when I tried to use the "image import" feature, it made duplicate copies of the thumbnail and preview and put them back in the original directory where it was importing _from_.
Any ideas?
Permission problems? I had an hosting that no matter how I upload pics via ftp their permission was changed to 600. The apache user was not able to read/write and everything had to be done twice.
"exotic" filename/path? so the module can't parse the url/path?
At this moment my only problem with Image is watermarking... It doesn't work at all. I still didn't have the time to investigate further. Uh and it doesn't clean up /files/images/temp as soon as possible... cron.php does. I wonder what will happen under heavy load and people uploading files with the same name at the same time.
I do see the images in the correct (or at least the same for those that work and those that don't) directory on the server. The file path is the recommended set up for a multisite install. I'll pass on the permissions question to my ISP (aka my husband) and see if that gives him any ideas. Thanks!
Jean Gazis
On 8/30/07, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo mail@webthatworks.it wrote:
It seems they are not there at all... not just they don't appear.
Permission problems? I had an hosting that no matter how I upload pics via ftp their permission was changed to 600. The apache user was not able to read/write and everything had to be done twice.
"exotic" filename/path? so the module can't parse the url/path?
On 8/30/07, Jean Gazis jgazis@gmail.com wrote:
These are the problems I'm having with images on one site: the images, thumbnails, and previews are in the files/images directory. They are in a gallery, but in the gallery view it shows all the info, but does not show the actual image at any size. The individual image node view is the same. When I inserted the images into other page nodes, some appear and some don't, but I can't see any difference between them.
http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/node/2 contains: <img src="/files/ur1/images/red-williams-pears.jpg" class="framert" alt="red pears">
http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/node/1 contains:
<img src="/files/ur1/images/1-basil.jpg" class="framert" alt="fresh basil">
The first image is visible, the second shows the alt text or a missing icon depending on the browser. I can't figure out what's different. I did not change any settings in the image module, and resetting to defaults just in case didn't do anything.
When opening the images directly with the browser, the first one works but the second one gives a Drupal "page not found" page.
The latter means that the RewriteCond in Drupal's .htaccess was unable to find a real file there and proceeded to let Drupal handle that URL.
So, apache can't read the 1-basil.jpg file. If the file is there, then it is probably a file permissions problem.
In addition, when I tried to use the "image import" feature, it made duplicate copies of the thumbnail and preview and put them back in the original directory where it was importing _from_.
Any ideas?
Jean
On 8/28/07, Ivan Sergio Borgonovo mail@webthatworks.it wrote:
On Tue, 28 Aug 2007 16:23:20 -0400 "Jean Gazis" jgazis@gmail.com wrote:
I also have a site where I really need it to be easy for users to upload photos, and it doesn't look like imagefield and imagecache are the answer to that, either. I might try one of the gallery mods. I've only used the gallery that comes with image.
I'm using it with 5.2... I used it with 4.5 or 4.7 and uploaded some hundreds of images with no problem. Yep... the upload part is hard to fine tune (permissions? quota? taxonomy?) So your main problem was uploads and erratic behaviour, is it?
So it seems like the module has a reputation for being buggy, and is going wrong for me in more than one way, so I'm interested in alternatives. I'd prefer that they don't require custome theming, though, because I haven't gotten into that yet.
Well my problem was css were scattered in gallery2, block, gallery etc... and having something that look good in drupal *and* in gallery as a stand alone app was not that fun + some repetition not perfect integration in "messages". I'm not saying that it was terribly hard or impossible... just it was boring and I think hard to maintain.
My concern is that while I find positive Image module looks like a page node... maybe it looks like a page node too much, users should have "less" freedom.
Just first impression... actually I was interested in your opinion to standarize/invest in one module to build up galleries.
-- Ivan Sergio Borgonovo http://www.webthatworks.it
-- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
-- Jean Gazis www.jeangazis.com www.boxofrain.us
"Believe those who are seeking the truth; doubt those who find it." - André Gide -- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
On Wednesday 29 August 2007 21:03:08 Jean Gazis wrote:
http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/node/1 contains:
<img src="/files/ur1/images/1-basil.jpg" class="framert" alt="fresh basil">
Is this the picture you're trying to display? http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/files/ur1/images/basil.jpg
Looks like it, and indeed it shows up if I change the img src path. I uploaded some of them more than once, so I'm not sure if that solves the problem.
OK, possibly the images where I created the image node individually are working, but not the ones that I added via "image import" - would that make sense? Also, why can't I see the images in their original nodes or in the gallery?
Jean
On 8/30/07, Jason Flatt drupal@oadaeh.net wrote:
Is this the picture you're trying to display? http://urbanorganic.jeangazis.com/files/ur1/images/basil.jpg
-- Jason Flatt http://www.oadaeh.net/ Father of Six: http://www.flattfamily.com/ (Joseph, 14; Cramer, 12; Travis, 10; Angela; Harry, 7; and William, 12:04 am, 12-29-2005) Linux User: http://www.xubuntu.org/ Drupal Fanatic: http://drupal.org/ -- [ Drupal support list | http://lists.drupal.org/ ]
-
Cog Rusty -
Ivan Sergio Borgonovo -
Jason Flatt -
Jean Gazis