Image rotation in posts

[dlgoff]

I seem to have forgotten how to rotate an image 90 degrees in a post. Help @Greg Bernhardt @berkeman

 

[berkeman]

Do you have a local copy of the image? Open it with some photo editor and there is usually a way to rotate the images in the editor. In the one below, the little round arrow icon at the top does the rotations.

 

[dlgoff]

Do you have a local copy of the image?

Yes. I rotated it using microsoft paint but it doesn't appear rotated when creating a new post.

 

[berkeman]

Is it posted already? Link?

 

[dlgoff]

no not yet

 

[berkeman]

Also, there is some magic thing called "clearing your cache", but each time I try to resort to that, it clears my cookies for lots of websites. I'm kind of a klutz at that...

 

[dlgoff]

I'll post my storm shelter pics in my storm shelter thread. Maybe they're really rotated. If not, could you check them out and fix if not rotated?

Thanks

 

[dlgoff]

@berkeman

The images didn't get rotated with my browser(firefox 37).

For that matter I can't even select them so that I can attempt to rotate.

 

[DrGreg]

I'll post my storm shelter pics in my storm shelter thread. Maybe they're really rotated. If not, could you check them out and fix if not rotated?

Thanks

The link you gave goes to post #41 which has no photos. I assume you mean post #39. The photo in that post is displaying correctly for me (i.e. does not require rotation).

 

[dlgoff]

The link you gave goes to post #41 which has no photos. I assume you mean post #39. The photo in that post is displaying correctly for me (i.e. does not require rotation).

It goes to post #41 for me and it has the photos.

 

[berkeman]

It goes to post #41 for me and it has the photos.

This is post #41...

Sure, have a good fire extinguisher but what are the odds of a serious fire in an all concrete buried storm shelter while waiting the few tens of minutes for a tornado to pass? I'd be more worried about sitting in concentrated Radon gas that accumulated over the year.

 

[DrGreg]

It goes to post #41 for me and it has the photos.

Post #41 is from bob012345 dated "Today 6:00 PM" in my time zone (2¼ hours ago). https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/my-storm-shelter.995953/post-6422024

Post #39 is from you dated "Yesterday 11:23 PM" in my time zone. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/my-storm-shelter.995953/post-6421694

 

[dlgoff]

Post #41 is from bob012345 dated "Today 6:00 PM" in my time zone (2¼ hours ago). https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/my-storm-shelter.995953/post-6422024

Post #39 is from you dated "Yesterday 11:23 PM" in my time zone. https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/my-storm-shelter.995953/post-6421694

That's not what I'm seeing.

 

[dlgoff]

Okay, Now I'm seeing the same post as you

 

[berkeman]

Post 41 is the last one in the thread, and I don't see your latest post. Are you sure you posted it? Post it again and if there's a duplicate I can delete it easily.

 

[DrGreg]

By the way, in Firefox if you hold down SHIFT while reloading a page, it should bypass the cache.

The images didn't get rotated with my browser(firefox 37).

37?? I'm on Firefox 83.0 (64-bit)

 

[mfb]

PF has no idea about image rotation, and generally the browser doesn't have that either (unless the website explicitly tells the browser to rotate images, PF does not). Normally browsers just show the image that was uploaded, whatever that might have been. If you want a different orientation you need to rotate it in your computer and then upload it as new image.

 

[DaveC426913]

Also, there is some magic thing called "clearing your cache", but each time I try to resort to that, it clears my cookies for lots of websites. I'm kind of a klutz at that...

The actual steps depend on your choice of browser (which you mentioned was FireFox-for-clay-tablets or something?) but you can select to clear only files and images but not cookies and passwords.

Yes. I rotated it using microsoft paint but it doesn't appear rotated when creating a new post.

I'm curious. When you double-click on a JPEG file in a folder on your drive, what application does it open up in? Does your system not have a default photo viewer?

 

[berkeman]

(which you mentioned was FireFox-for-clay-tablets or something?)

 

[dlgoff]

... I'm curious. When you double-click on a JPEG file in a folder on your drive, what application does it open up in? Does your system not have a default photo viewer?

Windows 7 Photo Viewer

 

[dlgoff]

37?? I'm on Firefox 83.0 (64-bit)

yep firefox 37 (64 bit) I like it, as it's less intrusive than the later versions.

 

[Wrichik Basu]

yep firefox 37 (64 bit) I like it, as it's less intrusive than the later versions.

But you are missing out on key security updates.

 

[Tom.G]

Do you have a local copy of the image? Open it with some photo editor and there is usually a way to rotate the images in the editor. In the one below, the little round arrow icon at the top does the rotations.

View attachment 273187

Now THAT looks like an unstable 3-body problem!

 

[sysprog]

I agree with @berkeman here − it's easy enough in MS Paint:

original angle:

(reduced in size and) rotated 90° to the right:

and there are online image processors that allow whichever degrees of rotation (at https://www.imgonline.com.ua/eng/rotate-image-360.php I chose 45 degrees)

That image is (reportedly − I don't have a to-me-reliable source, but I don't disbelieve it) of two bullets that were recovered after the battle at Gallipoli.

That's also a (silly?) way to keep the PF XenForo software from effectively rounding off the corners of the image.

 

[DaveC426913]

Windows 7 Photo Viewer

I think Photo Viewer will allow you to rotate pics.
Just rotate it to the correct orientation and the next time you open it it should be correct.

 

[FactChecker]

You need to be aware that some photo editors will just indicate standard rotations in the metadata and not really change the pixels in the photo (unless you also make other changes). It can be deceptive when you view the photo in a viewer that uses the metadata. Be sure to preview the "rotated" result in a viewer that will just show the photo pixels directly. You can always take a screen-shot of the displayed photo on the monitor and the resulting photo will be just as you see it on the monitor.

 

[sysprog]

You can always take a screen-shot of the displayed photo on the monitor and the resulting photo will be just as you see it on the monitor.

The screenshot resolution is the image screen area percentage of the defined screen buffer $-$ using the browser's developer tools, you can define a temporary screen buffer size that is large enough to accommodate the full resolution of the image in the original file $-$ here's a link to a Chrome-specific step-by-step procedure: https://davidaugustat.com/web/take-ultra-high-resolution-screenshots-in-chrome

 

[OCR]

Windows Photo Viewer seems to work. . . I might get sick, though. .

Uploaded from My Pictures. . .


Oh, and using. . .

.

 

[DaveC426913]

You need to be aware that some photo editors will just indicate standard rotations in the metadata and not really change the pixels in the photo

I believe that is standard. I believe orientation is always embedded in the metadata and virtually all renderers recognize it.
You can rotate the pixels using an editor, but the metadata still tells the renderer which way is up.

I am not positive of this; it is just a suspicion, based on the fact that I've never encountered a renderer that doesn't recognize orientation metadata.

 

[FactChecker]

I believe that is standard. I believe orientation is always embedded in the metadata and virtually all renderers recognize it.
You can rotate the pixels using an editor, but the metadata still tells the renderer which way is up.

I am not positive of this; it is just a suspicion, based on the fact that I've never encountered a renderer that doesn't recognize orientation metadata.

I have run into it when I made DVDs for use by DVD player slideshows. The slideshow looked fine on the computer, but I had to look at each photo in a DVD player to see what it really would look like there. There were hundreds (on many DVDs) that had to be rotated without relying on the metadata.

 

[DaveC426913]

I have run into it when I made DVDs for use by DVD player slideshows. The slideshow looked fine on the computer, but I had to look at each photo in a DVD player to see what it really would look like there. There were hundreds (on many DVDs) that had to be rotated without relying on the metadata.

Yeah. I can see a DVD player as an exception.

 

[partist]

I agree with @berkeman here − it's easy enough in MS Paint:

original angle:


View attachment 273238

(reduced in size and) rotated 90° to the right:


View attachment 273239

and there are online image processors that allow whichever degrees of rotation (at https://www.imgonline.com.ua/eng/rotate-image-360.php I chose 45 degrees)

View attachment 273240

That image is (reportedly − I don't have a to-me-reliable source, but I don't disbelieve it) of two bullets that were recovered after the battle at Gallipoli.

View attachment 273241

That's also a (silly?) way to keep the PF XenForo software from effectively rounding off the corners of the image.

In the museums in Gallipoli there are baskets with many such bullets embedded in each other.

 

[pbuk]

Also, there is some magic thing called "clearing your cache", but each time I try to resort to that, it clears my cookies for lots of websites. I'm kind of a klutz at that...

You can force a cache bypass in most browsers (but not Edge) by holding down the shift key and selecting the reload icon; this will not clear any cookies or other local storage.

 

[sysprog]

You can force a cache bypass in most browsers (but not Edge) by holding down the shift key and selecting the reload icon; this will not clear any cookies or other local storage.

Also, In Chrome, Firefox, Opera, IE, and some other browsers, Ctrl F5 reloads a non-cached version of the page (aka force refresh) -- it sends a 'cache-control: no-cache' http header directive to the server along with the reload page request . . .