Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
Discussion - Member to Member Sales - Research Center
I had problems uploading this image to another website. On that website, the image showed up correctly as a thumbnail while I was completing the process of uploading it. However, it did not show up as it should have on the stamp listing page. The box where the image should have been displayed remained blank. Strangely, when I hovered the mouse over that box, the stamp image showed up as it should in the adjacent enlargement display window. I tried using the site's tool for removing and replacing the problem JPG file a few times with the same results each time. I then deleted that entire listing from their website and started the process again from scratch—twice. Same results. Again, I tried using their tool to replace the existing uploaded file with the same file, but the problem persisted. I even tried renaming the file and uploading that as the replacement, but nothing worked. The box where the stamp should have been displayed remained blank with each and every effort. I finally contacted the site's support staff and was told the file must be corrupted.
I explained to the staff that this was one of several stamps that were all scanned in one pass and that most of the other stamps had already been processed individually in the same manner as this one and they were already on display on their site without any evidence of file corruption. Still, I was told it must be a corrupted file.
I'm still trying to understand how this file can be corrupted when it isn't a problem for me on my computer. Plus, it clearly had been uploaded to their site because the thumbnail and the "zoom" versions of the file image were displaying the stamp image correctly.
I was curious. So I tried uploading the same JPG file to a couple of other web sites and it displayed properly on both. I emailed it as an attachment to myself and to a friend and no problems were encountered.
Now, I have just uploaded the same file here to SOR as another test of the file's integrity. It obviously uploaded without any evidence of file corruption.
I'm not an expert in these matters and haven't encountered this sort of problem before. I am trying to understand how this file can work just fine attached to emails and work just fine on some websites, but not work on at least one other website.
Has anyone else here had this sort of problem? Can anyone shed any light on how this problem can occur with a JPG file? Thanks!
Tom
Login to Like
this post
Can't tell you why but I run into that problem every few hundred stamps. You just need to rescan it and do not assign it the same ID number. Can't tell you why it works but it works every time (I've uploaded well over 15,000 images onto that site in the past year or two).
It takes a lot less time to just do it than to try to figure out why, and it occurs so infrequently it's not worth worrying about.
Login to Like
this post
It might be causing some problems but it is a really nice stamp.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
Webpaper wrote:
"It takes a lot less time to just do it than to try to figure out why"
I know, Carol, but I can't help it.
I like a challenge and I like knowing why relatively simple routine processes don't produce the expected results from time to time. I haven't had much time so far this year to look into this. If we're snowed in by a blizzard this weekend, I should have a few days to devote to this and other not-so-high priority items on my to-do list, assuming we don't lose power! If I find out why this problem occurred, I'll follow up here.
Tom
Login to Like
this post
auldstampguy wrote:
"...it is a really nice stamp."
I agree, except for those areas that seem to have a gray shading. At first I was puzzled and didn't understand what they were. Then I held the stamp up to a bright light, stamp face forward, and there was my answer. It's nearly impossible to discern this from my JPG image, but those gray-shaded areas correspond exactly to the lines of the star-shaped watermark in the paper! The watermark is very clear and the watermark lines are unusually wide for a watermark, in my limited experience.
I still can't explain why only a few of the stamps in this set display this characteristic, but this stamp clearly isn't alone in this regard. I haven't searched online for discussions of this characteristic, but it's so obvious that I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere many times.
Otherwise, yes, it's a nice stamp. It has the type B overprint. Other than a hinge remnant and small pencil notation on the back, it's in mint condition.
Tom
Login to Like
this post
I finally found time to try relisting this stamp, but I didn't do it in a way to conclusively find out why my earlier attempts to upload this JPG at a particular website were all failing. I should have tried to upload the JPG again without making any changes to the original JPG, but didn't take the time to do that. Instead, I simply loaded the JPG into Photoshop, the program from which the original JPG file had been saved. Without changing anything, I resaved the JPG with the same name. When I attempted to relist the stamp, I experienced no problems. It had been a few weeks since my earlier failures to get the JPG file to upload properly. So I don't know if the website staff whom I had contacted made a change or a website glitch corrected itself or if my saving the JPG using the exact same process as before made a difference. If the problem arises again, I'll try to do a better job of narrowing the possible cause of the original problem.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
I don't understand how that can be.
I had problems uploading this image to another website. On that website, the image showed up correctly as a thumbnail while I was completing the process of uploading it. However, it did not show up as it should have on the stamp listing page. The box where the image should have been displayed remained blank. Strangely, when I hovered the mouse over that box, the stamp image showed up as it should in the adjacent enlargement display window. I tried using the site's tool for removing and replacing the problem JPG file a few times with the same results each time. I then deleted that entire listing from their website and started the process again from scratch—twice. Same results. Again, I tried using their tool to replace the existing uploaded file with the same file, but the problem persisted. I even tried renaming the file and uploading that as the replacement, but nothing worked. The box where the stamp should have been displayed remained blank with each and every effort. I finally contacted the site's support staff and was told the file must be corrupted.
I explained to the staff that this was one of several stamps that were all scanned in one pass and that most of the other stamps had already been processed individually in the same manner as this one and they were already on display on their site without any evidence of file corruption. Still, I was told it must be a corrupted file.
I'm still trying to understand how this file can be corrupted when it isn't a problem for me on my computer. Plus, it clearly had been uploaded to their site because the thumbnail and the "zoom" versions of the file image were displaying the stamp image correctly.
I was curious. So I tried uploading the same JPG file to a couple of other web sites and it displayed properly on both. I emailed it as an attachment to myself and to a friend and no problems were encountered.
Now, I have just uploaded the same file here to SOR as another test of the file's integrity. It obviously uploaded without any evidence of file corruption.
I'm not an expert in these matters and haven't encountered this sort of problem before. I am trying to understand how this file can work just fine attached to emails and work just fine on some websites, but not work on at least one other website.
Has anyone else here had this sort of problem? Can anyone shed any light on how this problem can occur with a JPG file? Thanks!
Tom
Login to Like
this post
re: I have been told this JPG file is corrupted, but.......
Can't tell you why but I run into that problem every few hundred stamps. You just need to rescan it and do not assign it the same ID number. Can't tell you why it works but it works every time (I've uploaded well over 15,000 images onto that site in the past year or two).
It takes a lot less time to just do it than to try to figure out why, and it occurs so infrequently it's not worth worrying about.
Login to Like
this post
Auctions - Approvals
re: I have been told this JPG file is corrupted, but.......
It might be causing some problems but it is a really nice stamp.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.
re: I have been told this JPG file is corrupted, but.......
Webpaper wrote:
"It takes a lot less time to just do it than to try to figure out why"
I know, Carol, but I can't help it.
I like a challenge and I like knowing why relatively simple routine processes don't produce the expected results from time to time. I haven't had much time so far this year to look into this. If we're snowed in by a blizzard this weekend, I should have a few days to devote to this and other not-so-high priority items on my to-do list, assuming we don't lose power! If I find out why this problem occurred, I'll follow up here.
Tom
Login to Like
this post
re: I have been told this JPG file is corrupted, but.......
auldstampguy wrote:
"...it is a really nice stamp."
I agree, except for those areas that seem to have a gray shading. At first I was puzzled and didn't understand what they were. Then I held the stamp up to a bright light, stamp face forward, and there was my answer. It's nearly impossible to discern this from my JPG image, but those gray-shaded areas correspond exactly to the lines of the star-shaped watermark in the paper! The watermark is very clear and the watermark lines are unusually wide for a watermark, in my limited experience.
I still can't explain why only a few of the stamps in this set display this characteristic, but this stamp clearly isn't alone in this regard. I haven't searched online for discussions of this characteristic, but it's so obvious that I'm sure it's been discussed elsewhere many times.
Otherwise, yes, it's a nice stamp. It has the type B overprint. Other than a hinge remnant and small pencil notation on the back, it's in mint condition.
Tom
Login to Like
this post
re: I have been told this JPG file is corrupted, but.......
I finally found time to try relisting this stamp, but I didn't do it in a way to conclusively find out why my earlier attempts to upload this JPG at a particular website were all failing. I should have tried to upload the JPG again without making any changes to the original JPG, but didn't take the time to do that. Instead, I simply loaded the JPG into Photoshop, the program from which the original JPG file had been saved. Without changing anything, I resaved the JPG with the same name. When I attempted to relist the stamp, I experienced no problems. It had been a few weeks since my earlier failures to get the JPG file to upload properly. So I don't know if the website staff whom I had contacted made a change or a website glitch corrected itself or if my saving the JPG using the exact same process as before made a difference. If the problem arises again, I'll try to do a better job of narrowing the possible cause of the original problem.
1 Member
likes this post.
Login to Like.