Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Yes John. D. On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > YOU ARE CLUELESS, these old cars have > MUCH MORE fine detail to see then > you are guessing, I KNOW, as I am > privy to the full size originals, > And as I reduced them in size they > looked worse and worse. These arent like today's "blob" > cars... > > Secondly, these were NOT sent to the general > public, they were sent to a PHOTO group, > and I stand by my earlier comments > that a photo group has a higher standard > of quality and a higher than average > PC display capability so it makes > no sense to DUMB DOWn/DEGRADE the photos > any more than necessary. I dont see > the point of sendin these to low spec > displays in the first place, they are > not going to be able to appreciate > them anyway if aize over-reduced. > > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Savage > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:19 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: > RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. > >YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING > >"SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE" > >Why? Because its ridiculous to be > >telling me to reduce my images > >size AND QUALITY any further when they display > >fine on my SUB $200 display which > >is not extraordinary, not state of the > >art & not even remotely expensive. I am > >not going to cater to very old crappy > >display resolution setups if it means I have > >to degrade the images for everyone, > >even those with reasonably modern > >resolutions. > > Sorry, but that's the wrong attitude to take when displaying images for > public consumption (this includes the PDML). If people have to change a > setting or buy a new piece of hardware, then the pictures ain't worth > the > effort. > > Certain types of photos benefit from increased resolution, a gnarled old > > tree, the aged steel beams of an old bridge, basically anything with > texture. Pictures of shinny cars don't suffer nearly as much for being > down > sized for web viewing. They just don't have the fine detail to loose. > > > >SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher > >resolution setups mean you have > >to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found > >that the higher resolution setups > >I have gone to over the years GREATLY > >ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, > >NOT just photo viewing. More workspace > >means more information at a glance, less > >scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT > >ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people > >here could be mislead by your comments > >thinking that higher resolution displays > >are only good for viewing photos. It makes > >just about everything you do on a PC > >easier to do, THE VERY THING THE > >ORIGINAL "COMPLAINERS" WERE ASKING > >FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still > >is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. > >It for your own benefit, not mine... > >JCO > > There is no right or wrong. This is a personal preference thing. > > For me to be able to comfortably read text at 1600x1200 I have to bump > up > the font size to 120 DPI, thus negating the benefit of the extra > resolution. Belive me I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me. > > D. > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > >David Savage > >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >Subject: > >RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. > >. > > > > > >At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > > >ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? > > > >Yes. > > > >I like ICE CREAM!! > > > > > > > THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH > > >MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER > > >DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE > > >PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB > > >DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. > > > >You know sweet F.A. about my system. > > > >Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. > >1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web > >browsing, Word, > >Excel & CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19" monitors running at > >1280x1024 each. > > > >Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding > >PDML > > > >screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, > > >it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML > >member > >preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your > >assumptions were wrong. > > > >Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and > >several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem > >unwilling to > > > >simply say "OK, I'll know better next time". Instead you've basically > >said "Screw you! Upgrade your hardware." > > > >Kisses, > > > >Dave > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
YOU ARE CLUELESS, these old cars have MUCH MORE fine detail to see then you are guessing, I KNOW, as I am privy to the full size originals, And as I reduced them in size they looked worse and worse. These arent like today's "blob" cars... Secondly, these were NOT sent to the general public, they were sent to a PHOTO group, and I stand by my earlier comments that a photo group has a higher standard of quality and a higher than average PC display capability so it makes no sense to DUMB DOWn/DEGRADE the photos any more than necessary. I dont see the point of sendin these to low spec displays in the first place, they are not going to be able to appreciate them anyway if aize over-reduced. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:19 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. >YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING >"SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE" >Why? Because its ridiculous to be >telling me to reduce my images >size AND QUALITY any further when they display >fine on my SUB $200 display which >is not extraordinary, not state of the >art & not even remotely expensive. I am >not going to cater to very old crappy >display resolution setups if it means I have >to degrade the images for everyone, >even those with reasonably modern >resolutions. Sorry, but that's the wrong attitude to take when displaying images for public consumption (this includes the PDML). If people have to change a setting or buy a new piece of hardware, then the pictures ain't worth the effort. Certain types of photos benefit from increased resolution, a gnarled old tree, the aged steel beams of an old bridge, basically anything with texture. Pictures of shinny cars don't suffer nearly as much for being down sized for web viewing. They just don't have the fine detail to loose. >SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher >resolution setups mean you have >to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found >that the higher resolution setups >I have gone to over the years GREATLY >ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, >NOT just photo viewing. More workspace >means more information at a glance, less >scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT >ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people >here could be mislead by your comments >thinking that higher resolution displays >are only good for viewing photos. It makes >just about everything you do on a PC >easier to do, THE VERY THING THE >ORIGINAL "COMPLAINERS" WERE ASKING >FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still >is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. >It for your own benefit, not mine... >JCO There is no right or wrong. This is a personal preference thing. For me to be able to comfortably read text at 1600x1200 I have to bump up the font size to 120 DPI, thus negating the benefit of the extra resolution. Belive me I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me. D. >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: >RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. >. > > >At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? > >Yes. > >I like ICE CREAM!! > > > > THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH > >MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER > >DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE > >PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB > >DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. > >You know sweet F.A. about my system. > >Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. >1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web >browsing, Word, >Excel & CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19" monitors running at >1280x1024 each. > >Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding >PDML > >screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, >it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML >member >preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your >assumptions were wrong. > >Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and >several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem >unwilling to > >simply say "OK, I'll know better next time". Instead you've basically >said "Screw you! Upgrade your hardware." > >Kisses, > >Dave -- 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
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. >YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING >"SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE" >Why? Because its ridiculous to be >telling me to reduce my images >size AND QUALITY any further when they display >fine on my SUB $200 display which >is not extraordinary, not state of the >art & not even remotely expensive. I am >not going to cater to very old crappy >display resolution setups if it means I have >to degrade the images for everyone, >even those with reasonably modern >resolutions. Sorry, but that's the wrong attitude to take when displaying images for public consumption (this includes the PDML). If people have to change a setting or buy a new piece of hardware, then the pictures ain't worth the effort. Certain types of photos benefit from increased resolution, a gnarled old tree, the aged steel beams of an old bridge, basically anything with texture. Pictures of shinny cars don't suffer nearly as much for being down sized for web viewing. They just don't have the fine detail to loose. >SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher >resolution setups mean you have >to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found >that the higher resolution setups >I have gone to over the years GREATLY >ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, >NOT just photo viewing. More workspace >means more information at a glance, less >scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT >ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people >here could be mislead by your comments >thinking that higher resolution displays >are only good for viewing photos. It makes >just about everything you do on a PC >easier to do, THE VERY THING THE >ORIGINAL "COMPLAINERS" WERE ASKING >FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still >is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. >It for your own benefit, not mine... >JCO There is no right or wrong. This is a personal preference thing. For me to be able to comfortably read text at 1600x1200 I have to bump up the font size to 120 DPI, thus negating the benefit of the extra resolution. Belive me I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me. D. >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: >RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? > >Yes. > >I like ICE CREAM!! > > > > THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH > >MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER > >DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE > >PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB > >DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. > >You know sweet F.A. about my system. > >Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. >1600x1200 >may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, >Word, >Excel & CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19" monitors running at >1280x1024 each. > >Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML > >screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, >it >you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML >member >preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your >assumptions were wrong. > >Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and >several >members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to > >simply say "OK, I'll know better next time". Instead you've basically >said >"Screw you! Upgrade your hardware." > >Kisses, > >Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING "SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE" Why? Because its ridiculous to be telling me to reduce my images size AND QUALITY any further when they display fine on my SUB $200 display which is not extraordinary, not state of the art & not even remotely expensive. I am not going to cater to very old crappy display resolution setups if it means I have to degrade the images for everyone, even those with reasonably modern resolutions. SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher resolution setups mean you have to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found that the higher resolution setups I have gone to over the years GREATLY ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, NOT just photo viewing. More workspace means more information at a glance, less scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people here could be mislead by your comments thinking that higher resolution displays are only good for viewing photos. It makes just about everything you do on a PC easier to do, THE VERY THING THE ORIGINAL "COMPLAINERS" WERE ASKING FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. It for your own benefit, not mine... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? Yes. I like ICE CREAM!! > THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH >MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER >DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE >PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB >DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. You know sweet F.A. about my system. Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. 1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, Word, Excel & CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19" monitors running at 1280x1024 each. Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML member preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your assumptions were wrong. Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to simply say "OK, I'll know better next time". Instead you've basically said "Screw you! Upgrade your hardware." Kisses, Dave >JCO > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: >RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >No I understood what you said. > >The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. >But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at >full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. >It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. > >IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you >shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. > >Dave > >On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand > > my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER atandard of image quality > > and a HIGHER than average spec of computer display for photo viewing > > than "the rest of the internet > > population". This matters > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Mark Roberts > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: > > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. > > . > > > > > > David Savage wrote: > > > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > > >the internet using population should be working. > > > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > > all? >
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
EXCUSE ME? this all started by a bunch of people telling me what I should do, namely reduce the quality of the images in that web gallery so they would be easier to view with low spec displays. So dont tell me I have a freaking attitude for telling them what to do in reply ( which is upgrade their displays ) when they started by telling me to degrade my images for their low spec displays. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:33 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob W > why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he > can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. > People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on > the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to > the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at > it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all > this e-bullying. -- 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
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
NO, I dont agree my images are not suitable for web viewing, they are not suitable for LOW SPEC PC displays. They display just fine on my sub $200 PC display. I have already posted this about three timea already. I AM NOT GOING TO RUIN THE PHOTOS JUST SO LOW SPEC DISPLAYS CAN VIEW THEM EASILY. Image quality is more important, let the LOW SPEC DISPLAY USERS deal with the scrolling or let them "ruin" them by downsizing, I am not going RUIN THEM FOR EVERYBODY, just to "suit" the lowest common denominator low spec displays. If they find my 1200 pixel images frustrating to view, I suggest they upgrade their displays instead of complaining they arent not "suitable" for their low spec displays.. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:28 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: "Bob W" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he > can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. > People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on > the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to > the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at > it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all > this e-bullying. > It's amazing isn't it? Once again, joc manages to foul things up and cause a ruckus. Once again, a thread he involves himself in devolves into something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Anyway, Bob is correct, it's been pointed out to joc that his images aren't suitable for web viewing, and has been told why. Let the Wookie win, people, you know who you are dealing with, and you know that nothing you can say is going to impress upon him the error of his ways. This thread illustrates why I went to a gmail account. The first thing I did was to filter his posts to get trashed by gmail, and they never reach my POP server, so I don't have to deal with them at all. William Robb -- 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
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? Yes. I like ICE CREAM!! > THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH >MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER >DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION >THATST THE PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP >OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO >SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. You know sweet F.A. about my system. Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. 1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, Word, Excel & CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19" monitors running at 1280x1024 each. Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML member preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your assumptions were wrong. Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to simply say "OK, I'll know better next time". Instead you've basically said "Screw you! Upgrade your hardware." Kisses, Dave >JCO > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: >RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >No I understood what you said. > >The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. >But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at >full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. >It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. > >IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you >shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. > >Dave > >On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > > than "the rest of the internet > > population". This matters > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Mark Roberts > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: > > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > > David Savage wrote: > > > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > > >the internet using population should be working. > > > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > > all? > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > >-- >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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I think people don't like being told what they should do, what they can afford, that they're stupid for not using the same or higher quality gear that JCO uses, and so on. It's not just about JCO's choice decision to post pics his way, it's his friggin attitude in telling people what they SHOULD do, and discounting the needs and personal choices others make. Shel > [Original Message] > From: Bob W > why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he > can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. > People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on > the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to > the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at > it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all > this e-bullying. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: "Bob W" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he > can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. > People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on > the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to > the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at > it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all > this e-bullying. > It's amazing isn't it? Once again, joc manages to foul things up and cause a ruckus. Once again, a thread he involves himself in devolves into something that has absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the thread. Anyway, Bob is correct, it's been pointed out to joc that his images aren't suitable for web viewing, and has been told why. Let the Wookie win, people, you know who you are dealing with, and you know that nothing you can say is going to impress upon him the error of his ways. This thread illustrates why I went to a gmail account. The first thing I did was to filter his posts to get trashed by gmail, and they never reach my POP server, so I don't have to deal with them at all. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
> If a person wants pictures for his own viewing pleasure, then > optimize them > for that purpose and leave them oon your hard drive. If you > want to post > pictures for the enjoyment of others, then stop being an > idiot and follow > the accepted standards regarding pixel dimensions. > why is everyone getting so worked up about this? It's his website, he can post whatever he likes on it. Nobody is forced to look at it. People have pointed out the normal conventions for showing photos on the web, so due diligence has been done. JCO doesn't wants to stick to the convention. So what? If you don't like his website, don't look at it. Simple, and nothing to get worked up about, and no reason for all this e-bullying. Bob -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
YOU ARE ABSOLUTELY CLUELESS ON THIS. THE HIGHER YOUR SCREEN RESOLUTION, THE BETTER THE IMAGES LOOK ON THE SCREEN AND THE EASIER IT IS TO EDIT THE IMAGES. SAYING AVID/SERIOUS PHOTOGRAPHERS (THE TYPE THAT WOULD SUBSCRIBE TO PHOTO WEB LIST LIKE THIS LIST) DONT NEED OR CANT/WONT BENEFIT FROM A HIGHER SPEC PC DISPLAY THAN AVERAGE NON DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHER IS THE DUMBEST FRICKIN' THING YOU HAVE EVER POSTED HERE AND YOU HAVE POSTED A WHOLE BUNCH OF DUMB SHIT. WHAT ARE YOU USING, 640X480? HIGHER PC SCREEN RESOLUTION M A T T E R S WITH DIGITAL PHOTOGRAPHY. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT PRINT EVERYTHING, MOST PEOPLE AT LEAST VIEW EVERTHING HOWEVER AND IF YOU CAN GREATLY IMPROVED THE VIEWING, IT MAKES NO SENSE TO SAY IT DOESNT MATTER... JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 2:10 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > I will hold my tongue and not say what's really on my mind, but in the > spirit of being the New Yorker that I am, I'll sign off now with one > quick > comment: You're am elitist snob and a schmuck! > it was posted only to a photo group which >> should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER >> atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than >> average spec of computer display for photo viewing >> than "the rest of the internet >> population". > This is the biggest piece of horseshit I've read in a very long time, and in no way can be construed as an honest opinion. Photographers take pictures to have pictures, not to have data files to look at on computer monitors. The computer is a means to an end, and the size of the screen has absolutely nothing in common with the finished product. A number of years ago, the enlarger was the industry tool for making pictures. What the above poster is alluding to would be akin to saying that if you were serious about photography, you would need to have an 8x10 enlarger in the basement to print your 6x7 negatives. If a person wants pictures for his own viewing pleasure, then optimize them for that purpose and leave them oon your hard drive. If you want to post pictures for the enjoyment of others, then stop being an idiot and follow the accepted standards regarding pixel dimensions. William Robb -- 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
Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > I will hold my tongue and not say what's really on my mind, but in the > spirit of being the New Yorker that I am, I'll sign off now with one quick > comment: You're am elitist snob and a schmuck! > it was posted only to a photo group which >> should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER >> atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than >> average spec of computer display for photo viewing >> than "the rest of the internet >> population". > This is the biggest piece of horseshit I've read in a very long time, and in no way can be construed as an honest opinion. Photographers take pictures to have pictures, not to have data files to look at on computer monitors. The computer is a means to an end, and the size of the screen has absolutely nothing in common with the finished product. A number of years ago, the enlarger was the industry tool for making pictures. What the above poster is alluding to would be akin to saying that if you were serious about photography, you would need to have an 8x10 enlarger in the basement to print your 6x7 negatives. If a person wants pictures for his own viewing pleasure, then optimize them for that purpose and leave them oon your hard drive. If you want to post pictures for the enjoyment of others, then stop being an idiot and follow the accepted standards regarding pixel dimensions. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
IF YOUR'E ANNOYED WITH YOUR SETUP, UPGRADE IT, DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR CRAPPY OLD SPEC. SETUP. PUT THE BLAME WHERE BLAME IS DUE, O NY O U RE N D. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... No I understood what you said. The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. Dave On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mark Roberts > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > David Savage wrote: > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > >the internet using population should be working. > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > all? > > > -- > 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 > -- 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
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... No I understood what you said. The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. Dave On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Mark Roberts > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > David Savage wrote: > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > >the internet using population should be working. > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > all? > > > -- > 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 > -- 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
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
it's called CONVICTION and strong non-waving opinions which have be formed and ingrained via proven years of experince, not "inflexibility". jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:41 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... On 4/3/07, Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > David Savage wrote: > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > >the internet using population should be working. > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > all? Surprised? No. It's more a matter that I'm continually amazed how one person can be so single minded and inflexible. Cheers, Dave -- 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
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
HUH? Are you freaking retarded? This group is NOT the same as the general population regarging photo displays/ imaging. This is a PHOTO specific group, and as such should be much more attuned to image quality and should/does have HIGHER than "internet average" displays for PHOTOGRAPHIC PURPOSES. That's like saying a musclecar group drives same type engines in their cars as the general population does. This is NOT elitism, this is a a specific INTEREST in photography which today heavily involves computer displays. And to furthermore dispell this STUPID elitism label, the stuff I am talking about/recommending is very CHEAP, way way cheaper than any DSLRS and good SLR LENSES so how can that be elitism, its intelligence, not elitism, dont confuse the two jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I've tried to stay out of this, but your last comments just rankled me. The PDML is comprised of the same people that comprise the net's general population. People are here from all over the world, come from all socio-economic situations, and for whatever reason have computers ranging from inexpensive with small, low rez screen up to the highest quality newest technology. In fact, at least one regular contributor uses borrowed computers, or whatever he can use while at work. In addition, I know of another PDML member who has had numerous shows, sold many prints, and who has won several photographic contests, who, for reasons of space, uses a 17-inch monitor. You are so full of yourself that the crap was running out of my screen as I read your last message. You are continually alienating people here, even those that have been supportive of you. I will hold my tongue and not say what's really on my mind, but in the spirit of being the New Yorker that I am, I'll sign off now with one quick comment: You're am elitist snob and a schmuck! Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my > post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters -- 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
Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
No I understood what you said. The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. Dave On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand > my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet > population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Mark Roberts > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > David Savage wrote: > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > >the internet using population should be working. > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at all? > > > -- > 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 > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I've tried to stay out of this, but your last comments just rankled me. The PDML is comprised of the same people that comprise the net's general population. People are here from all over the world, come from all socio-economic situations, and for whatever reason have computers ranging from inexpensive with small, low rez screen up to the highest quality newest technology. In fact, at least one regular contributor uses borrowed computers, or whatever he can use while at work. In addition, I know of another PDML member who has had numerous shows, sold many prints, and who has won several photographic contests, who, for reasons of space, uses a 17-inch monitor. You are so full of yourself that the crap was running out of my screen as I read your last message. You are continually alienating people here, even those that have been supportive of you. I will hold my tongue and not say what's really on my mind, but in the spirit of being the New Yorker that I am, I'll sign off now with one quick comment: You're am elitist snob and a schmuck! Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand > my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > internet > population", it was posted only to a photo group which > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER > atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than > average spec of computer display for photo viewing > than "the rest of the internet > population". This matters -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER atandard of image quality and a HIGHER than average spec of computer display for photo viewing than "the rest of the internet population". This matters jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Mark Roberts Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... David Savage wrote: >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of >the internet using population should be working. Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at all? -- 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
