I'm going to be banging on about Photobucket again today (sorry!), because I just know before I even preview this finished post, that's it's going to include different widths of photos yet again! I don't even want to look at the finished post to be honest. All my hard work wasted with a higglety pigglety post! So I figured out if the length of any image exceeds 1024p, which when it's not a perfectly square image it obviously would (!) then Photobucket resizes it. My full-length shots, even some of the shoe images when it involves any more than an ankle (!) simply cannot be cut to 1024 while still being 600p wide (unless I chop the head off, feet off etc which defeats the whole purpose). The old Photobucket was perfectly happy to keep images at 600p wide, up to lengths of at least 1200p (I always tried to remain within 'double the size of the width' or else I found it would crop the width). I thought the whole point of paying for a Pro account on that site was so I could upload images of any size (and let's face it a picture 600x1000 isn't exactly massive)! I'm at my wits end with it, but will just have to hope it's some sort of glitch they are fixing along with the million other things wrong with the size as emailing them (which I've done again today) doesn't get you anywhere. I dread to think the volume of complaints and lost custom/revenue they're experiencing, it must be crazy!
Wearing: Floral tea dress Pearl Lowe at Peacocks, pink 'The Colour Card' tights House of Holland.
Fit: Snug fit, but I stuck to my usual size. Heel just under 4 1/2"
Comfort: Arches will ache after a while.
What quirky tights, not seen anything like those! Sorry you are still having issues. I now use flickr for my photos, just the free account though id consider going pro if I wanted though i don't think it edits. Not sure how i can help except to sympathise x
ReplyDeletethank you! It's been a nightmare trying to get through to them...just making do with dodgy pics for now! x
DeleteLove your outfit - it is SO springlike (*looks outside and sees the grey, sigh - definitely NOT spring over here!)
ReplyDeleteWe've had a few days of sunshine thankfully, although it's still been cold.
DeleteHi do you have a petticoat under that dress? I have the same one but yours looks fuller? Its a pretty dress though and I think I will be wearing it a lot more come spring. I got the 70's style pearl lowe dress off ebay for a very low price and then promptly jammed the zip when trying it on! so had to break it. AAHHHH!! am such a clutz lol. So not such a bargain now I have to pay a fiver to get a new zip! x
ReplyDeleteNo petticoat. Oh no, can't believe that about the zip, eeek! I don't think I even use the zip on mine (maybe to take it off), but I've been stuck or nearly stuck in too many dresses that I figure if it doesn't go on without using the zip then it would probably be too small and if it does go on, then at least I have the zip option if it's too tight! Those side zips can be such a struggle, you need at least 3 hands and can't see what you're doing!
Deletelove the tight!
ReplyDeletehow does it look like on top?
Thank you, the tights are actually just different levels of opaque-ness, so the further up they go the darker they get as they're thicker, the 'foot/lower leg' section are very sheer. There is another band around my mid thigh, like the one mid-calf.
Deleteexpected little bit more details but still nice :)
Deleteand that band seems making even more good looking with your mid-calf!
really like how you know yourself and making your charm points even more charming.
thanks for your courteous reply as always!