[cwmcgu2]

I love picture threads, especially the themed ones specific to a type of firearm. They are just fun to look at as well as providing ideas for future acquisitions or modifications. I think it would be neat if we added a section somewhere on THR for the posting on picture threads. In the section there could be various threads posted like "9mm Picture thread," "AR picture thread," or "Lever-action picture thread". These threads would not be mixed in with general discussion and easier to access for those needing their "gun porn" fix. I think its a better option than stickying picture threads at the top of the individual sections. Anyone else here think this is a good idea?

[h0ss]

I think it is a good idea. I also like picture threads, but hate searching for them all. If they were all in one forum section, it would be easier and more fun to browse. I especially have been liking the EDC picture threads, myself.

[General Geoff]

A more apt title for such a subforum would be "Members' Armory" wherein the point of the forum is to post pictures of firearms that you own, or have seen or used personally.

Not a bad idea for a subforum, if you ask me.

[Big Boomer]

I agree! A new forum for pictures! Many posts have great pictures hidden in obscure threads. A common place for all is a great idea!

[frenchbushmaster]

+1
Realy good idea.
For progress in photography and for the pleasure to look at our best pictures.

:)

[Slugless]

I like the way they're randomly interspersed.

[cwmcgu2]

Boo, yall moved this to a section where hardly anyone but mods will see it.

[S.P.E.C.T.R.E.]

Well the Mods are the ones that can make it happen! I agree it's a great idea.

[TimboKhan]

I am not a Mod, but my guess is that this isn't going to happen. For a variety of reasons, the mods just aren't super interested in adding any more sub-forums, a point that I both agree and disagree with, since I have wanted a milsurp sub-forum forever! Anyway, I don't think it's a bad idea, but I don't think it's gonna happen, either.

Incidentally, the Technical forum is where a thread like this SHOULD be. You get the attention of most, if not all, of the mods, and you would be surprised how many people peruse the technical threads.

[cwmcgu2]

Incidentally, the Technical forum is where a thread like this SHOULD be. You get the attention of most, if not all, of the mods, and you would be surprised how many people peruse the technical threads.


Yeah I know you're right. I knew it fit better in this forum, but I put it in the General discussion so it could get a few pages worth of "yeah I'd like to see that" posts so the mods might be more open to the idea. I think just about everyone here would love to see such a sub forum.

[hso]

We'll get that up and running when we have a little money left over from the membership dues used to pay for keeping the site open and the moderators fed.;)

[cwmcgu2]

:( So that's a no?

[horge]

At least he didn't mention keeping the moderators well fed.
The budget might easily dwarf your national budget.
:D

[Skunkabilly]

Anyone interested in photography should take a look at www.strobist.com. By far the best treatise on off-camera flash use ever.

[JShirley]

I think the biggest problem would be bandwith. Good pictures just take up a lot more space than text.

[igpoobah]

The threads are already out there, this is just an organization suggestion. ( I think ).

Adding sub-fora doesn't (or at least shouldn't) cost money.

[redneck2]

Problem I can see is that a LOT of band width would be absorbed by guys wanting to post pix of their collection of beat up 870's, Mossberg 500's, and 1962 Sears rimfires.

Kinda like real porn. I don't want pictures of something I already have. I want pictures of something I dream about.

I think the biggest problem would be bandwith. Good pictures just take up a lot more space than text.
Question from a technologically challenged individual. How does the band width thing actually work?? That is, suppose there's a picture from 2 months ago. It's still there in the archives. Does it take up band width if it's not being viewed? I know pix take a lot of space compared to text.

[Zak Smith]

I don't want pictures of something I already have. I want pictures of something I dream about.

http://demigodllc.com/photo/

;)

[redneck2]

I clicked the link. Dang!!!

You know you're old when you look at the Dillon calendar and try to figure out what gun she's holding.

[Derek Zeanah]

Question from a technologically challenged individual. How does the band width thing actually work?? That is, suppose there's a picture from 2 months ago. It's still there in the archives. Does it take up band width if it's not being viewed? I know pix take a lot of space compared to text.2 parts to the answer. "Bandwidth" refers to the size of our data pipe and the amount of information flowing over it. When you're viewing an image it's being sent from our server (or a server, depending) to your browser, and as such it's consuming bandwidth.
Every image on the server consumes disk space as well. 2 years from now it's likely no-one will be actively viewing your image (so it'll be consuming no bandwidth), but it will still be taking up space on disk.