Hi, Bill...glad my instructions helped. I'm not much good with IDing trees, so I will let others help you with that. (Though I think #2 might be a bay of some sort, and the orange one looks like dwarf poinciana. But those are purely guesses on my part.)

As for your pictures being smaller, you really need to reduce them to the size you want BEFORE you upload them to Photobucket. You can do that in any graphics program. (I use PaintShop Pro). Even the one that comes with Microsoft, "Paint," will work. You open your photo, make a duplicate, and close the original (so you don't lose it), then you click on Image (in PSP, anyway...just search amongst your options for the right one in any other program). You will get a menu with things you can do to the image. Choose Resize, and tell it the percentage you want to reduce it to. I would think 50% or 60% would work on photos of the size above. Then save your newly reduced photos in a folder somewhere and load them all up to Photobucket when you are done. Voila. Photos that are a better size for sharing!

I usually compress my file size at the same time so that my photos aren't as heavy and are better for emailing and sharing. But that's another lesson. Your Help button in your graphics program will tell you how to do it.

Worst comes to worst, you can find a nice person to email the big pictures to, and he/she can reduce the size and compress them for you and send them back. (Do you know any nice people? hehehe)

Good luck!

Marcia

1) Not sure, btu it might be a stopper.

2) Tabebuia.

3) Royal Poinciana. My favorite tropical flowering tree. I know that it's not uncommon, but a good RP can't be beat for color and beauty of form. It has exactly that low spreading canopy that you are looking for.

my 2 cents on photos: the reason I use Photobucket is that they will downsize photos automatically with their upload. If I had to spend time re-sizing my photos I would never get anything posted.

below the "upload" button it allows you to choose the size. the size I choose is "320x240 medium"

Trees: the bottom one looks like a regular poinciana that has been trimmed to keep it that height.

Denise

I don't care for the quality of the photos downsized by Photobucket, and I prefer to decide for myself what size I want them and how much I want them to be compressed. So that's why I suggest doing it yourself. Especially if you want a photo clear enough to use for help in IDing something. To me, it isn't hard at all, nor very time consuming. I can do a large batch of photos in ten minutes or so, and one or two only take a few seconds. Since I email a lot of pictures to friends, I'm going to resize them all anyway, as I would never email a full size, full resolution picture to anyone. So it's never been an inconvenience.

It all depends on your preference I suppose, but I like to have more control over the image size and the file size of my pictures, and I can't do that from Photobucket. It's not like I post photos on GW every day or anything, so I go for the best quality I can get. Just a personal preference that I've never found difficult.

Marcia

I let photobucket resize mine too. My new photo software resizes email pictures automaticly. I'd rather not have 2 pics of the same thing...resized and normal size (although I do sometmes). I don't want to lose/replace my normal size photo in case I ever want to print/enlarge them.

But what I really want to say is I don't know what those first 2 trees ARE but I'm pretty sure of what they NOT.
not a stopper, not a tabebuia and probably not native to florida. I went through my fla native books and didn't see 'em.
Someone from So. FL needs to step up here now.

I also let photobucket automatically size my photos. I limit the upload size to "large". That gives me the option to reduce them if I want to in photobucket using the 'resize' option, to "medium".

As Marcia says, it all comes down to personal preference. I post lots of photos here and on the photography forum as well. I'm happy with the way photobucket handles it and can't tell any difference on these forums between photos I resize in Photoshop CS2 and those I resize in photobucket.

Kate

I probably should say that when I transfer my pics from the camera to a folder on my computer, I always go in immediately and resize & compress any that I am going to email friends. I have literally a couple thousand pics on Photobucket for several reasons, and I don't like to send just a link. I like to email certain people certain photos, with captions or comments. So right away I resize & compress the ones I'm going to be emailing. Then I upload them to Photobucket if I'm going to post them anywhere.

But, what I also like to do at the same time is crop, sharpen if needed, color correct if needed, and all that stuff. Very seldom do I upload photos exactly as they come off my camera. Way too much stuff in them that I don't need to be posting. (For instance, most of my yard photos will have hoses or containers of pulled weeds in the background that I'm going to crop out. Stuff like that).
So, again, I resize, compress, crop and/or do any touch ups I want to do, then upload to Photobucket. That way, there's nothing uploaded that needs anything further done to it.

I like to be in control of my photography. It's one of the few things in my life I CAN be in control of. Haha!

Marcia

I forgot to add that when posting photos on forums or emailing to friends, it isn't the size of the photo in INCHES that matters as much as the file size. In other words, a photo that appears to be say 5" x 7" on your monitor may actually be a smaller file size (and therefore upload quicker) than one that appears to be 4" x 5" or smaller. That's because file size has to do more with resolution and the like than it does with the actual visible size of the photo.

That's where the compression comes in. I don't believe Photobucket compresses images when it resizes them. (It didn't used to, anyway.) So you might be posting a smaller picture (from a viewing standpoint) that is till very high in file size and very slow to upload, if you aren't careful. I take my digital photos at a fairly high resolution in case I want to print them. But when I resize for posting, I compress them way down so they might go from over a million bytes to 50,00 bytes, or the like. It makes a huge difference, and is one other thing I like to do myself to be sure the photos don't bog everything down too much.

And one last thing...photos that look HUGE one one monitor (maybe even larger than the actual screen) may be much smaller on another one. The size of the monitor and the settings on it will make it very different from computer to computer. It's impossible, of course, to post photos that will look good on everyone's monitor, so you try to find something not too far to either extreme, in order to have it look good on the most monitors you can.

Often times photos that are posted on GW show up on my monitor somewhere between a wallet-sized photo and a postage stamp. Seriously. I've seen them the size of typical thumbnails, only it was the whole photo. I'm sure it looked different to the person posting, but when they are that small, detail is lost to many of us. Just something to keep in mind when you see some photos come through that look huge on your monitor and others that look tiny. It probably looks very different to the person who posted.

And now back to the tree ID's....any more comments on what Bill is trying to identify? I think everyone is in agreement on the dwarf poinciana, but there seem to be different opinions on the others.

Marcia

1. Black Olive (Bucida buceras)

2. Pink Tab (Tabebuia heterophylla)

3. Royal Poinciana (Delonix regia)

I want to thank everyone who responded to my plea. I have learned so much about photo downloading, now I just have to process it all.
I think jerryattreezoo got the Black Olive right and several suggest the third was a royal poinciana but I am not sure about number two being a Tabebuia. I looked at some photos of it on the web and the tree foliage is much denser than the photos I saw and if you look closely you can see some long narrow bean shaped pods. The flowers were a definite white.
Here is a view of the tree from a distance that shows its shape and the density of the leaves. Do Tabeuia have those bean shaped seed pods?

Hi, Bill...glad the photo segue didn't drive you crazy, and hope you do find parts of it helpful. We sort of sidetracked your tree post, but if it gave you pointers on various ways to get smaller pictures (and there are many), then that's a good thing for future posts, right?

I'm still curious about the trees, but I must say, jerryattreezoo is pretty darn knowledgable about them, I've noticed. Jerry, is working with trees what you do for a living? And what is a Tree Zoo?

Just wonderin'.......

Marcia

Bill,
The last photo you posted is very large - probably too large for most monitors. But if you go back into photobucket and change the size to large it will change the size here on the thread as well.

Kate

Marcia,

I used to work for a developer in their nursery and landscaping department. What was once my vocation is now my avocation. The TreeZoo is the nickname for the Deerfield Beach Arboretum so kids could understand what an arboretum is, a Zoo for Trees. I am the president of the Friends of the Deerfield Beach Arboretum, the 501c3 that co-manages the Arboretum with the City of Deerfield Beach.

Bill
Your last photo is definitely a tabebuia heterophylla-pink trumpet tree (flowers can be pink or white). Yes the pods are correct.
Perhaps you were thinking of the yellow tabebuia which looks quite different.
Betrocks Florida Plant Guide by Ed Gilman says it is the least hardy of the trumpet trees and lists the zone as 10a-11.

Denise

Thanks, I guess that takes care of all three of my mystery trees. Now I will google and select. Bill

Just so you know what a difference monitors and settings can make, your last photo looks lovely on my computer. Fills the screen, yes, but not to "overflowing." That's why I say you can't get it right for every monitor. It is larger than I would NEED to see the tree in question, but definitely not too large for my monitor.

Marcia