Don't mind me. Just doing some experimenting.
"wayno's method", or METHOD #1 - at PB, double left-click on picture, right-click, copy image, back to Ratsun, right-click, paste directly into post.
Let's try this - grab Direct Link and paste it into the post
OK, let's try copying the Direct Link and using the Image tool, that's what WormDrive said and I believe that's datzenmike's method also... METHOD #2..
Both of the successful methods above made the image immediately viewable. Much better than blue text.
Now, some experiments with "sizes" or resolution or whatever you want to call it.
518kB is over half a MB. More data than necessary for the forums.
Using the Image Tool resulted in an image that displays slightly larger than Method #1. (EDIT: Well, it did at home on a 24" monitor. At work now, on a 20" 3:4 ratio monitor the two images above are the same size.)
Next I want to try something a little bit different than Method #2. I suspect this will give identical results to #2, it's just a slightly different procedure. Instead of double-clicking on the image to get the bigger image, then clicking on Direct Link, I'm taking the Direct Link from the Library page. What I'm calling the "Library Page" is illustrated in the third picture in post #1. So, Library page, left-click on the Direct Link text, right-click on the highlited code, copy, then back to the Forum. Click on Image Tool, paste, OK.
Notice the text in the two pictures above. I'm hoping this will help people wrap their heads around the concept of scaling vs. compression. For the horn picture I set the camera to 1024 X 768, but set the quality to "High". The resulting image held about 518kB of data. In the last picture with the wrecking yard nuts & bolts and the pneumatic tool I set the camera to 1280 X 960, which should result in more data. But I set the camera to "Normal", so it actually recorded 260kB, less data than the "smaller" picture.
There's some kind of scaling that goes on between Photobucket and Ratsun Forums, because no matter how much data is in the original picture, they never seem to display any larger than above. I suspected 1024 X 768 was at or beyond the limits for posting to the forum.
640 X 480 is good enuf for some subject matter and I will use that more from now on. 640 X 480 "NORMAL" is as low as our SP-500UZ digital camera goes.
If I need more picture or more detail, 1024 X 768 "NORMAL" should be good enuf. 1024 X 768 "HI" is overkill, and wastes resources.