On Fri, Apr 24, 2009 at 04:50:29AM -0700, Rick Womer wrote:
Larry, I really like both of your "selected" photos.
Might I suggest, though, that you use 600 pixels vertical
dimension (rather than 1200 pixels on the longest side) for re-
sizing? That way, almost everyone can get a decent-sized image on
their monitor without scrolling or fussing.
How to size and display pictures is proving to be more challenging
than taking and processing them.
If someone has a decent sized monitor then going too low on the
resolution makes it tough to see, but if I size for that, then I run
the risk of making them too big for people's screens.
So, to help, if I post something that's too big:
When I post single pictues on flickr, at a large size, then at the
top
is a set of links:
square, thumbnail, small, medium, large and original. If I post it
too
large, you can always click it down to "medium" which uses about 500
as the big dimension.
Likewise, trimming off everything from "sizes" will take you to the
medium size that they display by default:
so
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/3458852452/sizes/o/
becomes
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/3458852452/
I think I'll probably just go back to the default flickr display
which
is about that size. I'm not going to have time to set up a new photo
account someplace else, much less research them.
Another thing that may help, is that one really nice feature of opera
is that if you hold the control key down and spin the scroll wheel,
it
will zoom in and out on what is in the browser window.
All of that being said, is there a consensus on "the optimal size"
for
displaying photos. On my little monitors, it looks like 900 vertical
pixels is about the best for a big picture.
Cheers,
Rick
http://photo.net/photos/RickW
--- On Mon, 4/20/09, Larry Colen <l...@red4est.com> wrote:
Zab had asked for a particular type of poppy photo. On my
way to work
I stopped to shoot some poppies near Lexington Reservoir. I
thought
I'd try a test, shoot them for a bit with one camera,
then put the
lens on the other and shoot some more.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157616985839165/
or
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/ellarsee/sets/72157616985839165/
to get all 31 at the medium size at once.
I just processed the jpegs to 1200 pixels on the largest
side, which
not only saves bandwidth, but levels the playing field a
little bit.
Without getting all scientific, and recognizing that
it's a somewhat
unusual color balance, I think that the K100 did just fine.
There are
a lot of situations where the K20 has a lot of advantages
(starting
with ergnomics and weather sealing), but it doesn't
necessarily always
do much better pictures.
Note: I realize that I really should trim the gallery down
a bit from
31 images, but it's late, and I'm tired.
Here are two of the better, one from each camera:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/3458852452/sizes/o/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/ellarsee/3458861764/sizes/o/
--
The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is
to post
the wrong answer.
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com
http://www.red4est.com/lrc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
directly above and follow the directions.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
--
The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post
the wrong answer.
Larry Colen l...@red4est.com http://www.red4est.com/lrc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above
and follow the directions.
