right, so why bother to make them smaller for inadequate systems running low rez displays? I think there is some confusion here, this wasnt/isnt a typical web gallery designed for general population, this was posted for a specific group of people, the Pentax mailing list to be specific, and this group should have, in my opinion a higher spec of computer than average for viewing photos, and should have a greater appreciation than average of image quality that a 1200 pixel image affords vs say 800 or 1024 size images. Whatever, hey they are my photos after all and I am the only one who saw them full size, so I am in a better position to say if the loss at 800 or 1024 was tolerable or not to me. Whatever... jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Christian Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 6:54 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell wrote: > If you see ANY photo at 1500 pixels wide which > is how I view them usually for full image, going smaller > like to 800 pixels wide really hurts the details a LOT. Apparently you > dont care or think it matters, but then why buy a 6/10Mp camera and > not care whether your photos are reduced in details way down to only 1 > Mp or less? For a web gallery, yes.. Who gives a shit, John? I print them at full res, but the web galleries are designed to fit on ANY monitor (hence 800 pixels on the longest side). There were some cool cars in your gallery but my laptop (free from work; don't tell me to upgrade it) has a max resolution of 1024x768. Honestly, the fact that they are jpegs has degraded the image enough, so again, who gives a shit? -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
