Have only ever purchased before, trying to list a few items from my
parents' house, can create the description OK, when I go to load photos
(from local hard drive) the preview looks fine, but when it does the
upload image gets replaced with a random solid pastel colour, have
turned off ghostery and uBlock for ebay, still the same.

What gives?

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> Have only ever purchased before, trying to list a few items from my
> parents' house, can create the description OK, when I go to load photos
> (from local hard drive) the preview looks fine, but when it does the
> upload image gets replaced with a random solid pastel colour, have
> turned off ghostery and uBlock for ebay, still the same.
>
> What gives?

Never had that before, despite using ublock origin. Once you've uploaded,
can you go in to edit the photos on the ebay site (crop, etc) - do they stay
the solid colour or do you get the images back?

Try a different browser? The 'random colour' thing on other websites can be
due to generating a 'preview' of an image that's only one pixel high, that
gets expanded to the full frame. Something may have gone wrong in the
CSS/etc.

I tend to upload photos from the mobile app because it's quicker if you've
taken them with the phone: I create the listing on the mobile app, add the
images, save as draft, and then go to the computer to edit it.

I do find that once you have completed the listing on the computer and
pressed the preview button at the bottom (the one next to the 'list now'
button) the listing appears as it would but the image gallery doesn't work,
so you can only see the first image but not scroll through them. When you
do the actual listing the images work, and you can go back and edit the
listing if something isn't right.

Theo

On 08/04/2024 10:33, Theo wrote:

> Try a different browser? The 'random colour' thing on other websites can be
> due to generating a 'preview' of an image that's only one pixel high, that
> gets expanded to the full frame.

I applied for my bus pass on-line and uploaded a photo. The web page
gave a preview - it was my whole face but with such a poor resolution it
looked as crime watch had doctored it to make me anonymous. Luckily when
the credit card size pass arrived it had a fairly high resolution photo. :)

--
mailto : news {at} admac {dot} myzen {dot} co {dot} uk

Am 07/04/2024 um 18:05 schrieb Andy Burns:
> Have only ever purchased before, trying to list a few items from my
> parents' house, can create the description OK, when I go to load photos
> (from local hard drive) the preview looks fine, but when it does the
> upload image gets replaced with a random solid pastel colour, have
> turned off ghostery and uBlock for ebay, still the same.
>
> What gives?
>

You need to upload from the app. I have never managed to upload a photo
from the laptop.

--
Ottavio Caruso

Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> wrote:
> You need to upload from the app. I have never managed to upload a photo
> from the laptop.

*shrug* Just tried it now and it works for me (Linux/Firefox, but I've
used other browsers previously too).

Theo

On Sun, 7 Apr 2024 18:05:39 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>Have only ever purchased before, trying to list a few items from my
>parents' house, can create the description OK, when I go to load photos
>(from local hard drive) the preview looks fine, but when it does the
>upload image gets replaced with a random solid pastel colour, have
>turned off ghostery and uBlock for ebay, still the same.
>
>What gives?

It's a problem with the photo. Taking a high-resolution photo (JPEG) and editing
it with Irfanview does *exactly* the same thing for me. Taking a
lower-resolution photo and then just uploading it 1:1 unedited works.

I haven't been able to figure out just what in the edit process triggers the
pastel block: there's the EXIF tags or their lack, rotation marker, diverse JPEG
features (lossless rotation, for example), etc. It may have something to do with
the JPEG/GIF quality setting; ISTR lower worked; don't know if that's a size
issue or not. Some websites also respond to a large high-resolution photo with
an error message which does *not" say "file too big", but that then turns out to
be the problem.

Thomas Prufer

Thomas Prufer wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> when I go to load photos
>> (from local hard drive) the preview looks fine, but when it does the
>> upload image gets replaced with a random solid pastel colour
>
> It's a problem with the photo. Taking a high-resolution photo (JPEG) and editing
> it with Irfanview does *exactly* the same thing for me.

Thanks I'm back home now, so will try it again tonight after scaling the
image down ...

On Wed, 10 Apr 2024 19:13:42 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>Thomas Prufer wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> when I go to load photos
>>> (from local hard drive) the preview looks fine, but when it does the
>>> upload image gets replaced with a random solid pastel colour
>>
>> It's a problem with the photo. Taking a high-resolution photo (JPEG) and editing
>> it with Irfanview does *exactly* the same thing for me.
>
>Thanks I'm back home now, so will try it again tonight after scaling the
>image down ...
>

I'd try to use a "quality" setting well under 80 first -- I couldn't quite
figure out which of the settings I tried were the important ones...

Thomas Prufer

Thomas Prufer wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> when I go to load photos (from local hard drive) the preview looks
>> fine, but when it does the upload image gets replaced with a random
>> solid pastel colour
>
> It's a problem with the photo. Taking a high-resolution photo (JPEG) and editing
> it with Irfanview does *exactly* the same thing for me. Taking a
> lower-resolution photo and then just uploading it 1:1 unedited works.

I tried loading into GIMP and
crop very slightly
saving with 94% quality
remove EXIF
rescale to 50% size
convert jpeg to png

none of which made any difference

using chrome instead of firefox worked (an unfortunate trend of many
websites)

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> I tried loading into GIMP and
> crop very slightly
> saving with 94% quality
> remove EXIF
> rescale to 50% size
> convert jpeg to png
>
> none of which made any difference
>
> using chrome instead of firefox worked (an unfortunate trend of many
> websites)

Just try uploading the original photo to ebay directly?
The ebay picture editor will do all those edits, and I find the workflow
quicker than repeated File->Open, File->Save As in an external editor.

(unless you strip EXIF it'll share the EXIF with ebay, but I think they
re-encode everything for their purposes with no EXIF so the punters won't
see it)

Not had problems with Firefox myself, although not tried Windows.

Theo

Theo wrote:

> Just try uploading the original photo to ebay directly?

When I do that, the initial thumbnail is rendered correctly, but then it
uploads in the background and the whole image becomes a random pastel
colour.

> The ebay picture editor will do all those edits

But I'm editing the pastel image ...

On 4/15/2024 1:09 PM, Andy Burns wrote:
>
> Thomas Prufer wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> when I go to load photos (from local hard drive) the preview looks
>>> fine, but when it does the upload image gets replaced with a random
>>> solid pastel colour
>>
>> It's a problem with the photo. Taking a high-resolution photo (JPEG) and editing
>> it with Irfanview does *exactly* the same thing for me. Taking a
>> lower-resolution photo and then just uploading it 1:1 unedited works.
>
> I tried loading into GIMP and
> crop very slightly
> saving with 94% quality
> remove EXIF
> rescale to 50% size
> convert jpeg to png
>
> none of which made any difference
>
> using chrome instead of firefox worked (an unfortunate trend of many websites)
>

Why not run the "file" command on it (Linux or WSL) and
see if there is a unique property inside it.

I was working with what I thought was a text file the other day,
and grep would not finish scanning my text file. When I saw
the output of "file", I knew I was sadly mistaken about my
assumptions of text. And there appeared to be some binary
corruption in the file, like some clusters didn't get written
at some point. Once I edited out all the binary blunders with
a hex editor, grep began working again.

You've probably taken the picture with an Apple product :-)

Another possibility is some kind of "automatic classifier"
on the website, has rejected the picture. For any number of reasons.

"You may include pictures, as long as they don't infringe third-party rights
and they follow our policies, including the Feedback misuse policy, the
Offensive materials policy, the Adult items policy, and the
Illegal explicit content policy."

Paul

On Mon, 15 Apr 2024 18:09:32 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>
>Thomas Prufer wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> when I go to load photos (from local hard drive) the preview looks
>>> fine, but when it does the upload image gets replaced with a random
>>> solid pastel colour
>>
>> It's a problem with the photo. Taking a high-resolution photo (JPEG) and editing
>> it with Irfanview does *exactly* the same thing for me. Taking a
>> lower-resolution photo and then just uploading it 1:1 unedited works.
>
>I tried loading into GIMP and
>crop very slightly
>saving with 94% quality
>remove EXIF
>rescale to 50% size
>convert jpeg to png
>
>none of which made any difference
>
>using chrome instead of firefox worked (an unfortunate trend of many
>websites)

ISTR that quality well below 94% did the trick -- 75% or so.

Been a while: now I just scale back the number of pixels when taking the photo
for ebay.

Thomas Prufer

Paul wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> using chrome instead of firefox worked (an unfortunate trend of many websites)

Latest example is my pension provider website now gives me an endless
stream of zebra-crossings and motorbikes to identify, thankfully I can
get past by solving the audio version.

> Why not run the "file" command on it (Linux or WSL) and
> see if there is a unique property inside it.

original file from phone

jug1_a.jpg: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, aspect ratio,
density 1x1, segment length 16, Exif Standard: [TIFF image data,
little-endian, direntries=11, manufacturer=Google, model=Pixel 5a,
orientation=upper-left, xresolution=164, yresolution=172,
resolutionunit=2, software=HDR+ 1.0.611900660zd, datetime=2024:04:07
17:00:48, GPS-Data], baseline, precision 8, 2900x3024, components 3

50% resize, 95% quality, EXIF stripped

jug1_a - Copy.jpg: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, resolution
(DPI), density 300x300, segment length 16, progressive, precision 8,
1450x1512, components 3

Same but as PNG

jug1_a - Copy.png: PNG image data, 1450 x 1512, 8-bit/color RGB,
non-interlaced

> I was working with what I thought was a text file the other day,
> and grep would not finish scanning my text file. When I saw
> the output of "file", I knew I was sadly mistaken about my
> assumptions of text. And there appeared to be some binary
> corruption in the file, like some clusters didn't get written
> at some point. Once I edited out all the binary blunders with
> a hex editor, grep began working again.
>
> You've probably taken the picture with an Apple product :-)

The only Apple product I wanted was an Apple ][, from the EXIF, you'll
see it's a Pixel5a

> Another possibility is some kind of "automatic classifier"
> on the website, has rejected the picture. For any number of reasons.
>
> "You may include pictures, as long as they don't infringe third-party rights
> and they follow our policies, including the Feedback misuse policy, the
> Offensive materials policy, the Adult items policy, and the
> Illegal explicit content policy."

Multiple images of stoneware chemists jars?

On 4/17/2024 3:28 AM, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>
>>> using chrome instead of firefox worked (an unfortunate trend of many websites)
>
> Latest example is my pension provider website now gives me an endless stream of zebra-crossings and motorbikes to identify, thankfully I can get past by solving the audio version.
>
>> Why not run the "file" command on it (Linux or WSL) and
>> see if there is a unique property inside it.
>
> original file from phone
>
> jug1_a.jpg:        JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, aspect ratio, density 1x1, segment length 16, Exif Standard: [TIFF image data, little-endian, direntries=11, manufacturer=Google, model=Pixel 5a, orientation=upper-left, xresolution=164, yresolution=172, resolutionunit=2, software=HDR+ 1.0.611900660zd, datetime=2024:04:07 17:00:48, GPS-Data], baseline, precision 8, 2900x3024, components 3
>
> 50% resize, 95% quality, EXIF stripped
>
> jug1_a - Copy.jpg: JPEG image data, JFIF standard 1.01, resolution (DPI), density 300x300, segment length 16, progressive, precision 8, 1450x1512, components 3
>
> Same but as PNG
>
> jug1_a - Copy.png: PNG image data, 1450 x 1512, 8-bit/color RGB, non-interlaced
>
>> I was working with what I thought was a text file the other day,
>> and grep would not finish scanning my text file. When I saw
>> the output of "file", I knew I was sadly mistaken about my
>> assumptions of text. And there appeared to be some binary
>> corruption in the file, like some clusters didn't get written
>> at some point. Once I edited out all the binary blunders with
>> a hex editor, grep began working again.
>>
>> You've probably taken the picture with an Apple product :-)
>
> The only Apple product I wanted was an Apple ][, from the EXIF, you'll see it's a Pixel5a
>
>> Another possibility is some kind of "automatic classifier"
>> on the website, has rejected the picture. For any number of reasons.
>>
>>     "You may include pictures, as long as they don't infringe third-party rights
>>      and they follow our policies, including the Feedback misuse policy, the
>>      Offensive materials policy, the Adult items policy, and the
>>      Illegal explicit content policy."
>
> Multiple images of stoneware chemists jars?
>

I read the Wiki on JFIF and can't see anything there that is an issue.
No evidence of a non-standard pixel setup (appears to be RGB24). Your edits did a nice
job of "cleaning" the smelly bits of the original file.

I could not find any mention of "segment length 16" and what the
significance of that is. I have a number of JPG pictures here
that don't have that field.

Paul

Paul wrote:

> I read the Wiki on JFIF and can't see anything there that is an issue.
> No evidence of a non-standard pixel setup (appears to be RGB24). Your edits did a nice
> job of "cleaning" the smelly bits of the original file.
>
> I could not find any mention of "segment length 16" and what the
> significance of that is. I have a number of JPG pictures here
> that don't have that field.

My conclusion is that it's firefox, I can try later with a clean
profile, but I did already try with ublock and ghostery disabled.

On 17/04/2024 10:34, Andy Burns wrote:
> Paul wrote:
>
>> I read the Wiki on JFIF and can't see anything there that is an issue.
>> No evidence of a non-standard pixel setup (appears to be RGB24). Your
>> edits did a nice
>> job of "cleaning" the smelly bits of the original file.
>>
>> I could not find any mention of "segment length 16" and what the
>> significance of that is. I have a number of JPG pictures here
>> that don't have that field.
>
> My conclusion is that it's firefox, I can try later with a clean
> profile, but I did already try with ublock and ghostery disabled.

try the edge browser within the Sandbox app within Windows 10/11?

SH wrote:

> Andy Burns wrote:
>
>> My conclusion is that it's firefox, I can try later with a clean
>> profile, but I did already try with ublock and ghostery disabled.
>
> try the edge browser within the Sandbox app within Windows 10/11?

It does work with Chrome, so I'd be surprised it it didn't work with Edge.

I think Firefox vs Chrome is reaching the same point that Netscape vs
InternetExplorer got to, i.e very few websites bother testing with FF
now :-(

On Wed, 17 Apr 2024 10:34:41 +0100, Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:

>Paul wrote:
>
>> I read the Wiki on JFIF and can't see anything there that is an issue.
>> No evidence of a non-standard pixel setup (appears to be RGB24). Your edits did a nice
>> job of "cleaning" the smelly bits of the original file.
>>
>> I could not find any mention of "segment length 16" and what the
>> significance of that is. I have a number of JPG pictures here
>> that don't have that field.
>
>My conclusion is that it's firefox, I can try later with a clean
>profile, but I did already try with ublock and ghostery disabled.

Someone else had the same problem -- and no solution:

https://community.ebay.com.au/t5/Selling/Photos-not-uploading-block-of-colour-instead/td-p/2529697

excerpt here:

"I upload my photos and ebay transforms the photos into blobs of solid colour
for some reason.
The photos are .jpeg, less than 1MB each, less than 1600 x 1600 and greater than
500 x 500 pixels. As you can see they upload fine to imgur.
Any suggestions?"

and, no, no helpful suggestions.

Thomas Prufer

Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
> SH wrote:
>
> > Andy Burns wrote:
> >
> >> My conclusion is that it's firefox, I can try later with a clean
> >> profile, but I did already try with ublock and ghostery disabled.
> >
> > try the edge browser within the Sandbox app within Windows 10/11?
>
> It does work with Chrome, so I'd be surprised it it didn't work with Edge.
>
> I think Firefox vs Chrome is reaching the same point that Netscape vs
> InternetExplorer got to, i.e very few websites bother testing with FF
> now :-(

https://support.mozilla.org/bm/questions/1365562

"That stripey pattern is characteristic of turning on
privacy.resistFingerprinting -- it randomizes images extracted from an HTML
canvas.

To make an exception for sites you WANT to be able to do that, after the
problem occurs, look for a new icon next to the lock icon in the address
bar. It should look a bit like a picture. Click that to manage the
permission related to this feature. "

I have 'privacy.resistFingerprinting' turned off and ebay works. I turn it
on and I upload a stripey picture, if I turn it off and upload the same
picture I get the correct image.

Theo

Theo wrote:

> https://support.mozilla.org/bm/questions/1365562
>
> "That stripey pattern is characteristic of turning on
> privacy.resistFingerprinting -- it randomizes images extracted from an HTML
> canvas.

Indeed I did have that setting turned on, and adding an exception
allows it to work

It also explains why I was getting diagonal stripey blobs instead of
[A46] or [M1] road names on maps.

.... thanks!

Am 17/04/2024 um 17:18 schrieb Theo:
> Andy Burns <usenet@andyburns.uk> wrote:
>> SH wrote:
>>
>>> Andy Burns wrote:
>>>
>>>> My conclusion is that it's firefox, I can try later with a clean
>>>> profile, but I did already try with ublock and ghostery disabled.
>>>
>>> try the edge browser within the Sandbox app within Windows 10/11?
>>
>> It does work with Chrome, so I'd be surprised it it didn't work with Edge.
>>
>> I think Firefox vs Chrome is reaching the same point that Netscape vs
>> InternetExplorer got to, i.e very few websites bother testing with FF
>> now :-(
>
> https://support.mozilla.org/bm/questions/1365562
>
> "That stripey pattern is characteristic of turning on
> privacy.resistFingerprinting -- it randomizes images extracted from an HTML
> canvas.
>
> To make an exception for sites you WANT to be able to do that, after the
> problem occurs, look for a new icon next to the lock icon in the address
> bar. It should look a bit like a picture. Click that to manage the
> permission related to this feature. "
>
>
> I have 'privacy.resistFingerprinting' turned off and ebay works. I turn it
> on and I upload a stripey picture, if I turn it off and upload the same
> picture I get the correct image.
>
> Theo

'privacy.resistFingerprinting' is stupid. It doesn't really anonymize
your browsing and it just breaks websites.

--
Ottavio Caruso