RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Secondly you post makes no sense, 1280x960 cant EVER have the sharpness of good 1600x1200 image, no matter how good the CRT. You know how sharp this particular sony is?, I saw things on FONTS that I never even knew existed with this CRT for the first time in many years of computing, and that was with normal size fonts displayed at 1600x1200. Thats SHARP. its way better than all previous monitors I have ever owned, none of which were trinitrons I will admit and I thought they were all good until I got this one, only now I know they were all garbage compared to this oneThis monitor is so good that I bought two of them ( they were being closed out brand new in box, super cheap) , one is a spare, not even being used at this time jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO wrote: >I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. Don't you think that's being rather elitist? Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are those with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very nice. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
This monitor/card I am using (Dell/Sony P991&radeon) easily does 1600x1200 at 75 Hz progressive. And text is crystal clear and there is no sharpness or flicker problem at 75 Hz which makes it even the slightest bit hard to read text. I must admit that this monitor is WAY better in terms of sharpness and lack of artifacts than any monitor I have ever owned, maybe this is why you think you cant do 1600x1200 on a CRT? I wouldnt have thought possible either UNTIL I saw it with my own eyes. Whoever or whatever told you that you cant go higher than 1280x960 with a 19" or larger CRT is nuts, its not only very possible, it simply blows away 1280x960 in actual usage. Is is perfect? Of course not, but I would NEVER EVER EVER go back to 1280x960 after using 1600x1200 for a short time both photographically, and for basic general workspace reasons. No matter how much you think your 1280x960 work"space" is plenty, the higher 1600x1200 resolution gives you more than 50% more pixels, and this in effect gives you even more than 50% more workspace because most programs have fixed pixel count in overhead. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO wrote: >I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. Don't you think that's being rather elitist? Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are those with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very nice. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Hi Jco This turns into one of the communications I don't want to participate in. You must have the eyes of an eagle or a mole. Just a last puzzle for you: What does T in an Eizo's monitor name stand for? I'm back to Pentax topics and will not respond to that thread anymore. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:58 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Secondly you post makes no sense, 1280x960 cant EVER have the sharpness of good 1600x1200 image, no matter how good the CRT. You know how sharp this particular sony is?, I saw things on FONTS that I never even knew existed with this CRT for the first time in many years of computing, and that was with normal size fonts displayed at 1600x1200. Thats SHARP. its way better than all previous monitors I have ever owned, none of which were trinitrons I will admit and I thought they were all good until I got this one, only now I know they were all garbage compared to this oneThis monitor is so good that I bought two of them ( they were being closed out brand new in box, super cheap) , one is a spare, not even being used at this time jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... JCO wrote: >I guess I didnt make this clear enough, I dont > do "lowest common denominator" web photos, if your > screen cant show them fully as I want them to be seen, > then you simply dont GET to see them. Even reducing > them to 800 pixels wide "ruins" them IHMO. Don't you think that's being rather elitist? Hell, why share photos at all if the only people who can view them are those with large and expensive monitor setups like yours? If this is how you always operate, I don't think I'll bother viewing your photos, even though, as I said, the ones I looked at were very nice. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
OK, dont respond, but you are not going to get away with the bad eyes comments and me not respond. I have excellent vision and this monitor is truly exceptional for a CRT of it's size. This isnt my sole opinion. Everyone who has seen it makes the same remarks, they cant believe how clear the fine details are INCLUDING fine text, compared to typical CRT monitors. Even when I run test patterns on it, virtually everything looks nearly perfect, including convergence, grayscale, geometry, etc. I cant speak for motion, I dont use it for gaming or video, but even that may be good too. I am not trying to say my monitor is worse/good as/ better than yours, All I am trying to say is, that given a good monitor, 1600x1200 is not only possible, I AM RECOMMENDING IT for photo and general purpose use over 1280x960. The extra resolution and workspace is extremely useful/beautiful. Your comments regarding it cant be done or isnt recommended by the mfgr are not simply not real world (anymore, at least) given really good monitors. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 5:16 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Hi Jco This turns into one of the communications I don't want to participate in. You must have the eyes of an eagle or a mole. Just a last puzzle for you: What does T in an Eizo's monitor name stand for? I'm back to Pentax topics and will not respond to that thread anymore. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:58 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Secondly you post makes no sense, 1280x960 cant EVER have the sharpness of good 1600x1200 image, no matter how good the CRT. You know how sharp this particular sony is?, I saw things on FONTS that I never even knew existed with this CRT for the first time in many years of computing, and that was with normal size fonts displayed at 1600x1200. Thats SHARP. its way better than all previous monitors I have ever owned, none of which were trinitrons I will admit and I thought they were all good until I got this one, only now I know they were all garbage compared to this oneThis monitor is so good that I bought two of them ( they were being closed out brand new in box, super cheap) , one is a spare, not even being used at this time jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Markus Maurer Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 1:32 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... An 19" Crt is optimized for a maximum resolution of 1280x1024 pixel and not more JCO, ask the manufacturers. Your Sony can't display 1600x1200 absolutely flicker free and without reduced sharpness in the edges. If you use anything else than a Matrox graphic card at such high resolutions I would not want to work with that setup even for a short time. I use Eizo/Nanoa monitors with Matrox cards which are among the highest quality you can get and could easily display 1600x1200 85 hertz pixel on the 21" but for my eyes 1280x960 at 100 hertz is much more comfortable for text reading. I use 2 monitors to have quite a large working space in Photoshop. Greetings Markus -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of J. C. O'Connell Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 7:00 AM To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... huh? I bought my video card for $35 new and got the Sony 19" CRT monitor for $135 new old stock on ebay. This stuff THAT I USE isn't state of the art or expensive, your stuff is just very out of date. I suggest you upgrade to higher resolution if you are into digital photography as its NOT expensive to go to 1600x1200 today by any standards, especially if you compare to the cost of digital SLRs and lenses, etc. I cant recommend it high enough, especially if you are still using 1280x960 or less, as it really makes a big difference in viewing and editing photos The reason I dont post the photos any smaller than 1200 pixels wide is I DONT LIKE THE WAY THEY LOOK reduced any smaller. Thats not "elitest", thats called artistic integrity. ( although these particualar phots are more documentary than artistic, they still benefit from a minimum image quality to be appreciated IMHO). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of John Celio Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:39 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: Web Gallery :Barrett-JacksonC
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Oh, I do care, but these are just web images, and everyone here understands that the pics are just representative of a full size print. Why bother to post anything to the web when it won't equal the quality of a good print. I want people to easily view my work, and if they want to see larger pics, that can be arranged. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Date: 4/2/2007 8:07:14 AM > Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > 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? > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:34 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > My heart goes out to you ... I can only imagine that your torment and > anguish is akin to that of Van Gogh's. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Date: 4/2/2007 7:24:04 AM > > Subject: RE: Web > Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > I agree, thats why I didnt want to go any smaller > > than 1200 pixels wide, it already is degraded > > even at that resolution, going smaller makes > > it worse, not even to mention having to convert > > them to sRGB for PC usage. > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Shel Belinkoff > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:44 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: RE: Web Gallery > > :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > > What hubris ... > > > > Putting the pics on the web "ruins" them. > > > > -- > 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > My heart goes out to you ... I can only imagine that your torment and > anguish is akin to that of Van Gogh's. > Perhaps in his angst he will pluck out his own eyes and out us out of his misery. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
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? jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:34 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... My heart goes out to you ... I can only imagine that your torment and anguish is akin to that of Van Gogh's. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Date: 4/2/2007 7:24:04 AM > Subject: RE: Web Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > I agree, thats why I didnt want to go any smaller > than 1200 pixels wide, it already is degraded > even at that resolution, going smaller makes > it worse, not even to mention having to convert > them to sRGB for PC usage. > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:44 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: Web Gallery > :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > What hubris ... > > Putting the pics on the web "ruins" them. -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
huh? I dont follow. What I am saying is EVEN IN A WEB photo, there is a huge difference in what you can see/image quality between a 1200 wide image and a a 800 wide image. (2.25 times the resolution) this has nothing to do with full rez. prints which of course are better than either size web photos. Actually, once you get down to web size images, the losses in changing photo sizes are nearly 100% loss. At very large size images ( near the resolution of the camera and lenses) there is less loss with similar reductions in photo size. ( like if you go from 3000 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, has less detail loss than going from 1200 to 800, even though the reduction in pixel percentage is the same). jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:10 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Oh, I do care, but these are just web images, and everyone here understands that the pics are just representative of a full size print. Why bother to post anything to the web when it won't equal the quality of a good print. I want people to easily view my work, and if they want to see larger pics, that can be arranged. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Date: 4/2/2007 8:07:14 AM > Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > 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? jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:34 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > My heart goes out to you ... I can only imagine that your torment and > anguish is akin to that of Van Gogh's. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Date: 4/2/2007 7:24:04 AM > > Subject: RE: Web > Gallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > I agree, thats why I didnt want to go any smaller > > than 1200 pixels wide, it already is degraded > > even at that resolution, going smaller makes > > it worse, not even to mention having to convert > > them to sRGB for PC usage. > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Shel Belinkoff > > Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:44 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: RE: Web Gallery > > :Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > > What hubris ... > > > > Putting the pics on the web "ruins" them. > > > > -- > 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > Oh, I do care, but these are just web images, and everyone here > understands > that the pics are just representative of a full size print. Why bother to > post anything to the web when it won't equal the quality of a good print. > > I want people to easily view my work, and if they want to see larger pics, > that can be arranged. Shel, as you know, the bottom line for publishing web images is to make them easily viewable by as many people as possible. This means sticking to a few accepted norms and procedures. The most important one is to ensure that your image can be viewed in full by the majority of viewers. If an image comes up cropped, then the viewer isn't seeing what you intended them to see. If the viewer has to scroll around to see the entire image, then you aren't presenting your images in a manner that does them justice. The bottom line is that if joc wants to bugger up his web presentation and spoil his own pictures in the process, that is his right. You and I may think he is a fool for doing so, I've never thought that shooting oneself in the foot is the smart way to do things, but if it is his way, and it works for him, then it's what he is going to do. I can't be bothered with wasting my time posting pictures to the web that aren't easily viewable, but his time is his to waste however he chooses, and to tell him differently is, as you well know, a total waste of your time as well. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
J. C. O'Connell wrote: > huh? I dont follow. What I am saying is EVEN IN A WEB > photo, there is a huge difference in what you can > see/image quality between a 1200 wide image and a > a 800 wide image. (2.25 times the resolution) this has nothing to do > with > full rez. prints which of course are better than > either size web photos. Actually, once you get > down to web size images, the losses in changing > photo sizes are nearly 100% loss. At very large > size images ( near the resolution of the camera > and lenses) there is less loss with similar > reductions in photo size. ( like if you go from > 3000 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, has less detail > loss than going from 1200 to 800, even though the > reduction in pixel percentage is the same). > jco > > Back to the trash bin for you. Woohoo. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
William Robb wrote: > the bottom line for publishing web images is to make them >easily viewable by as many people as possible. This means >sticking to a few accepted norms and procedures. >The most important one is to ensure that your image can be >viewed in full by the majority of viewers. >If an image comes up cropped, then the viewer isn't seeing what >you intended them to see. If the viewer has to scroll around to see >the entire image, then you aren't presenting your images in a >manner that does them justice. Current "best practice" usability standard is to design for optimum display at 1024 x 768, whilst allowing enough flexibility in design to allow for users to be able to get by with an 800 x 600 display and for things not to look too bad at 1600 x 1200. The goal is to make pages reasonably accessible to people with small displays and esthetically tolerable to people with large ones. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I dont send them to be "easy" for very low spec computers/displays and ruin them in the process. THAT is a waste of time. you guys should be more concerned with image qualiy but apparently you are more concerned other things I dont give a rats ass about...This was a quick and dirty photoshop web gallery, not something I am putting up permanently or commercailly which I would be willing to spend more time for multiple image sizes... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of William Robb Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:29 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... - Original Message - From: "Shel Belinkoff" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > Oh, I do care, but these are just web images, and everyone here > understands > that the pics are just representative of a full size print. Why bother to > post anything to the web when it won't equal the quality of a good print. > > I want people to easily view my work, and if they want to see larger > pics, that can be arranged. Shel, as you know, the bottom line for publishing web images is to make them easily viewable by as many people as possible. This means sticking to a few accepted norms and procedures. The most important one is to ensure that your image can be viewed in full by the majority of viewers. If an image comes up cropped, then the viewer isn't seeing what you intended them to see. If the viewer has to scroll around to see the entire image, then you aren't presenting your images in a manner that does them justice. The bottom line is that if joc wants to bugger up his web presentation and spoil his own pictures in the process, that is his right. You and I may think he is a fool for doing so, I've never thought that shooting oneself in the foot is the smart way to do things, but if it is his way, and it works for him, then it's what he is going to do. I can't be bothered with wasting my time posting pictures to the web that aren't easily viewable, but his time is his to waste however he chooses, and to tell him differently is, as you well know, a total waste of your time as well. 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a higher resolution file. And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files which is a bonus for those on slower connections. Dave On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? > jco -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
If you cant actually rebutt anything the post, I suggest you shut the hell up! These type of "now your in the trash bin, but I cant say why" replies are absolutely USELESS and unethical to boot. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:30 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell wrote: > huh? I dont follow. What I am saying is EVEN IN A WEB > photo, there is a huge difference in what you can > see/image quality between a 1200 wide image and a > a 800 wide image. (2.25 times the resolution) this has nothing to do > with full rez. prints which of course are better than > either size web photos. Actually, once you get > down to web size images, the losses in changing > photo sizes are nearly 100% loss. At very large > size images ( near the resolution of the camera > and lenses) there is less loss with similar > reductions in photo size. ( like if you go from > 3000 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, has less detail > loss than going from 1200 to 800, even though the > reduction in pixel percentage is the same). > jco > > Back to the trash bin for you. Woohoo. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a higher resolution file. And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files which is a bonus for those on slower connections. Dave On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? jco -- 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: 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
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: "Christian" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > 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? > YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT TO LOOK AT PICTURES ON A CRAPPY LITTLE LAPTOP. Just so you know... William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
William Robb wrote: >> > > YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT TO LOOK AT PICTURES ON A CRAPPY LITTLE LAPTOP. > Just so you know... Thanks, Bill. Oh yeah, YOUR INSANE! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: "Christian" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... >> >> YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT TO LOOK AT PICTURES ON A CRAPPY LITTLE LAPTOP. >> Just so you know... > > Thanks, Bill. Oh yeah, YOUR INSANE! > MY INSANE WHAT! ONLY AN IGNORAMACE WOULD FORGET AN APOSTROPHE wr -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
William Robb wrote: > - Original Message - > From: "Christian" > JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > >>> YOU MUST BE AN IDIOT TO LOOK AT PICTURES ON A CRAPPY LITTLE LAPTOP. >>> Just so you know... >> Thanks, Bill. Oh yeah, YOUR INSANE! >> > > MY INSANE WHAT! > ONLY AN IGNORAMACE WOULD FORGET AN APOSTROPHE You must be STUPID to think that I have TIME to use proper punctuation! If you even READ this thread you would know that I have NO TIME for anyone that doesn't run 1600x1200 screen resolution, much LESS time to use apostrophes! Instead of ATTACKING me, why don't YOU address the issues! -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop lesson. Open a file in PS, this one will do: <http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: Pixel Dimensions Width: 1200 pixels Height: 801 pixels Document Size: Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for web images. Dave At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: >I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but >on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image >is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily >see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. >jco > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for >preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I >think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a >higher resolution file. > >And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print >resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files >which is a bonus for those on slower connections. > >Dave > >On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? jco > >-- >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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Do the math, it aint anywhere near 240ppi, the data you are using/reading/believing is incorrect...The screen would have to be only 5" wide to get 240ppi with a 1200pixel wide image. I dont know anybody using that size screen or screen resolutions so extremely high that the displayed image would only be that wide on a typical 19" screen. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:07 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop lesson. Open a file in PS, this one will do: <http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: Pixel Dimensions Width: 1200 pixels Height: 801 pixels Document Size: Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for web images. Dave At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: >I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but >on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image >is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily >see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. >jco > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for >preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I >think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a >higher resolution file. > >And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print >resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files >which is a bonus for those on slower connections. > >Dave > >On 4/2/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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? jco > >-- >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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
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
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Suit yourself. 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. Cheers, Dave At 09:30 AM 3/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >Do the math, it aint anywhere near >240ppi, the data you are using/reading/believing is >incorrect...The screen would have to be only >5" wide to get 240ppi with a 1200pixel wide image. >I dont know anybody using that size screen or >screen resolutions so extremely high that the displayed >image would only be that wide on a typical 19" screen. >jco > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:07 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: RE: >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop >lesson. > >Open a file in PS, this one will do: > ><http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> > >Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: > >Pixel Dimensions >Width: 1200 pixels >Height: 801 pixels > >Document Size: >Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) > >As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for >web >images. > >Dave > >At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: > >I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but > >on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image > >is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily > >see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. > >jco > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > > >David Savage > >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >Subject: Re: > >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > >Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for > >preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I > >think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a > > >higher resolution file. > > > >And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print > > >resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files > >which is a bonus for those on slower connections. > > > >Dave -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I said this was just a temporary quick and dirty, higher image quality posting to a group, the rest of the internet world doesnt even know it exists. If I was going to do something more permanent or important, I would use multible image size photos and bigger thumbnails,,,This was a just a "stock" photoshop web gallery automatic type deal to make it easier to post a bunch of photos in a hurry... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 10:21 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Suit yourself. 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. Cheers, Dave At 09:30 AM 3/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >Do the math, it aint anywhere near >240ppi, the data you are using/reading/believing is incorrect...The >screen would have to be only 5" wide to get 240ppi with a 1200pixel >wide image. I dont know anybody using that size screen or >screen resolutions so extremely high that the displayed >image would only be that wide on a typical 19" screen. >jco > >-Original Message- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:07 PM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: RE: >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop >lesson. > >Open a file in PS, this one will do: > ><http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> > >Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: > >Pixel Dimensions >Width: 1200 pixels >Height: 801 pixels > >Document Size: >Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) > >As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for >web images. > >Dave > >At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: > >I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but > >on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image > >is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily > >see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. > >jco > > > >-Original Message- > >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > >Of > > >David Savage > >Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM > >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > >Subject: Re: > >WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > >Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution > >for preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If > >I think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link > >to a > > >higher resolution file. > > > >And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's > >print > > >resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files > >which is a bonus for those on slower connections. > > > >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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
David, All bluster aside, JCO's right on the technical side. The dpi listed in the file is irrelevant to the display on a monitor, where only the actual resolution of the file matters, dpi only matters on print output, where it determines the physical size of the printout. As most displays are around 80-100ppi (72ppi is archaic and hasn't been the case since the mid-90's and the death of single-resolution monitors), a 1200 pixel image will be around 12-15" wide on most modern monitors (depending on the actual running resolution). -Adam David Savage wrote: > Suit yourself. > > 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. > > Cheers, > > Dave > > At 09:30 AM 3/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> Do the math, it aint anywhere near >> 240ppi, the data you are using/reading/believing is >> incorrect...The screen would have to be only >> 5" wide to get 240ppi with a 1200pixel wide image. >> I dont know anybody using that size screen or >> screen resolutions so extremely high that the displayed >> image would only be that wide on a typical 19" screen. >> jco >> >> -Original Message- >> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >> David Savage >> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 9:07 PM >> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >> Subject: RE: >> WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... >> >> >> I'm getting my numbers from your files John. Here's a basic Photoshop >> lesson. >> >> Open a file in PS, this one will do: >> >> <http://www.jchriso.com/temp/BJWPB2007/images/BJWPB2007-000.jpg> >> >> Go to Image>Image Size... You will note: >> >> Pixel Dimensions >> Width: 1200 pixels >> Height: 801 pixels >> >> Document Size: >> Resolution: 240 pixels/inch (that's pixels per inch, or ppi) >> >> As I said, 240 ppi is a print resolution, 72 ppi is plenty enough for >> web >> images. >> >> Dave >> >> At 01:01 AM 3/04/2007, you wrote: >>> I dont know where you are getting 240ppi number from but >>> on a typical 19" monitor even a 1200 pixel wide image >>> is only about 100ppi which is NOT overkill, I can easily >>> see the improvement over 800 or even 1024 pixels wide. >>> jco >>> >>> -Original Message- >>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >>> David Savage >>> Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 12:02 PM >>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >>> Subject: Re: >>> WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... >>> >>> >>> Personally I always use 1024x768 as my assumed baseline resolution for >>> preparing web images, even though my system runs at 1280x1024. If I >>> think a particular shot suffers because of this, then I add a link to a >>> higher resolution file. >>> >>> And BTW John, 240 ppi for a web image is massive overkill, that's print >>> resolution. 72 is more than enough & it also results in smaller files >>> which is a bonus for those on slower connections. >>> >>> Dave > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Christian wrote: > .. why don't YOU address the issues! y'all got issues. Nazi rule G -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
> On Apr 2, 2007, at 5:42 PM, Christian wrote: > >> .. why don't YOU address the issues! > > y'all got issues. > > Nazi rule > > G Godfrey Godwins? Great. John -- http://www.neovenator.com http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
J. C. O'Connell 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 > Understand YOUR post? No one understands your posts. JCO, you're OBVIOUSLY on a plane much higher than anyone else can EVER achieve. > 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 > That's a bit elitist, don't you think? Never mind. Don't answer that. I'll solve all your problems right now. Just add pdml@pdml.net to your kill file. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com "...shut the hell up." -JCO -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
ELITEST? - NO F%#ING WAY! This is a photo enthusiast group, it's not elistist to cater to that groups interest. Is just plain STUPID to ruin all the files by making them really small for the general internet population when they are NOT being directed at that population. Go kill yourself,,, jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:04 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell 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 > Understand YOUR post? No one understands your posts. JCO, you're OBVIOUSLY on a plane much higher than anyone else can EVER achieve. > 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 > That's a bit elitist, don't you think? Never mind. Don't answer that. I'll solve all your problems right now. Just add pdml@pdml.net to your kill file. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com "...shut the hell up." -JCO -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, only the people who want me to "dumb way down" my posted photos for them are... I suggest those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing software or something to make them more usable, if they cant be bothered to upgrade their "photographically challenged" hardware As I stated, the hardware needed to see these photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive today, so it doesnt make sense to continue using those older lower resolution display setups, ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:04 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell 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 > Understand YOUR post? No one understands your posts. JCO, you're OBVIOUSLY on a plane much higher than anyone else can EVER achieve. > 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 > That's a bit elitist, don't you think? Never mind. Don't answer that. I'll solve all your problems right now. Just add pdml@pdml.net to your kill file. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com "...shut the hell up." -JCO -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
You don't know what you're talking about, or what the "demographic" of this list is. There are people here who can just barely afford one camera and a basic lens or two; there are people with various vision problems; there are people who have more important things to spend their money on than high-tech gear, such as making house payments, sending kids through college, caring for ill or infirm family members; students and those working their way through school or just starting out in life. I cannot believe that you are so pig-headed as to dis count these people. Photo enthusiast encompass a wide range of people ... y'know, I have a friend in Peru, I'm her daughter's godfather, and the only computer her daughter has to use is a very low-spec unit at her school. Should I discount sender her pics because she doesn't measure up to some arbitrary elitist standard. I said it before and I'll say it again: You're a schmuck. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, > only the people who want me to "dumb way down" > my posted photos for them are... I suggest > those still using really old low spec displays find some > resizing software or something to make them more > usable, if they cant be bothered to upgrade > their "photographically challenged" hardware > As I stated, the hardware needed to see these > photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive > today, so it doesnt make sense to continue > using those older lower resolution display setups, > ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of > a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
SCREW YOU, WHEN YOU FINALLY UPGRADE SOME DAY ( WHY ARE YOU WAITING? CANT AFFORD IT? I DONT BELIEVE THAT ). YOU WILL ONLY T H E N UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES/MADE NO SENSE TO BE USING THOSE OLD RESOLUTIONS WHEN YOU CAN/COULD HAVE UPGRADED SO INEXPENSIVELY TODAY 4/3/07 ! THIS IS A PHOTO GROUP, DUH! JCO -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:43 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... You don't know what you're talking about, or what the "demographic" of this list is. There are people here who can just barely afford one camera and a basic lens or two; there are people with various vision problems; there are people who have more important things to spend their money on than high-tech gear, such as making house payments, sending kids through college, caring for ill or infirm family members; students and those working their way through school or just starting out in life. I cannot believe that you are so pig-headed as to dis count these people. Photo enthusiast encompass a wide range of people ... y'know, I have a friend in Peru, I'm her daughter's godfather, and the only computer her daughter has to use is a very low-spec unit at her school. Should I discount sender her pics because she doesn't measure up to some arbitrary elitist standard. I said it before and I'll say it again: You're a schmuck. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, > only the people who want me to "dumb way down" > my posted photos for them are... I suggest > those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing > software or something to make them more usable, if they cant be > bothered to upgrade their "photographically challenged" hardware > As I stated, the hardware needed to see these > photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive > today, so it doesnt make sense to continue > using those older lower resolution display setups, > ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of > a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
And as such, encompasses a wide range of people with different needs, budgets, values, experience, and interests. This is starting to remind me of the HDTV thread a while back. Can't you get it through your thick skull that not everyone can afford or even want the best. And what hubris you have telling me what I can afford and can't afford. Were you to know my situation you'd take up a collection for me. Further, I have a recent machine and a monitor capable of generating the higher resolution, but I like the resolution at which I work. It's comfortable for my eyes and style, and I've no need/desire to use a higher resolution right now. Web images are a secondary concern for me. I'm more concerned with prints, which I view in real life. May I quote you? " Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > SCREW YOU, WHEN YOU FINALLY UPGRADE SOME > DAY ( WHY ARE YOU WAITING? CANT AFFORD > IT? I DONT BELIEVE THAT ). > YOU WILL ONLY T H E N UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES/MADE NO > SENSE TO BE USING THOSE OLD RESOLUTIONS > WHEN YOU CAN/COULD HAVE UPGRADED SO INEXPENSIVELY > TODAY 4/3/07 ! THIS IS A PHOTO GROUP, DUH! > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:43 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > You don't know what you're talking about, or what the "demographic" of > this list is. There are people here who can just barely afford one > camera and a basic lens or two; there are people with various vision > problems; there are people who have more important things to spend their > money on than high-tech gear, such as making house payments, sending > kids through college, caring for ill or infirm family members; students > and those working their way through school or just starting out in life. > I cannot believe that you are so pig-headed as to dis count these > people. > > Photo enthusiast encompass a wide range of people ... y'know, I have a > friend in Peru, I'm her daughter's godfather, and the only computer her > daughter has to use is a very low-spec unit at her school. Should I > discount sender her pics because she doesn't measure up to some > arbitrary elitist standard. I said it before and I'll say it again: > You're a schmuck. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: J. C. O'Connell > > > P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, > > only the people who want me to "dumb way down" > > my posted photos for them are... I suggest > > those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing > > software or something to make them more usable, if they cant be > > bothered to upgrade their "photographically challenged" hardware > > As I stated, the hardware needed to see these > > photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive > > today, so it doesnt make sense to continue > > using those older lower resolution display setups, > > ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of > > a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. > > > > -- > 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
>From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> >You and I may think he is a fool for doing so, I've never thought that >shooting oneself in the foot is the smart way to do things, but if it is >his way, and it works for him, then it's what he is going to do. But wait... It is very very smart if your intent is to put a hole in your foot. Tom C. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
NOPE, Your argument is futile because the PC display is JUST a cheap accessory to go with digital/DSLR photography and its WAY WAY less costly than the DSLR and good lenses so what I am arguing is that it's SENSELESS to be into DSLR photography AND not upgrade to current BUT INEXPENSIVE display resolutions to edit and enjoy those high res. DSLR images more easily or with higher quality reproduction The affordability factor is a NON issue because if you can afford the cameras and lenses, you can easily afford a good display monitor setup. I am not saying anyone can afford a good monitor setup, I am saying anymore DSLR system owners can. This is not HDTV, this is digital photography discussion which is far more relavant to the list... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 1:52 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... And as such, encompasses a wide range of people with different needs, budgets, values, experience, and interests. This is starting to remind me of the HDTV thread a while back. Can't you get it through your thick skull that not everyone can afford or even want the best. And what hubris you have telling me what I can afford and can't afford. Were you to know my situation you'd take up a collection for me. Further, I have a recent machine and a monitor capable of generating the higher resolution, but I like the resolution at which I work. It's comfortable for my eyes and style, and I've no need/desire to use a higher resolution right now. Web images are a secondary concern for me. I'm more concerned with prints, which I view in real life. May I quote you? " Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > SCREW YOU, WHEN YOU FINALLY UPGRADE SOME > DAY ( WHY ARE YOU WAITING? CANT AFFORD > IT? I DONT BELIEVE THAT ). > YOU WILL ONLY T H E N UNDERSTAND THAT IT MAKES/MADE NO > SENSE TO BE USING THOSE OLD RESOLUTIONS > WHEN YOU CAN/COULD HAVE UPGRADED SO INEXPENSIVELY > TODAY 4/3/07 ! THIS IS A PHOTO GROUP, DUH! > JCO > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Shel Belinkoff > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:43 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: RE: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > You don't know what you're talking about, or what the "demographic" of > this list is. There are people here who can just barely afford one > camera and a basic lens or two; there are people with various vision > problems; there are people who have more important things to spend > their money on than high-tech gear, such as making house payments, > sending kids through college, caring for ill or infirm family members; > students and those working their way through school or just starting > out in life. I cannot believe that you are so pig-headed as to dis > count these people. > > Photo enthusiast encompass a wide range of people ... y'know, I have > a friend in Peru, I'm her daughter's godfather, and the only computer > her daughter has to use is a very low-spec unit at her school. Should > I discount sender her pics because she doesn't measure up to some > arbitrary elitist standard. I said it before and I'll say it again: > You're a schmuck. > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: J. C. O'Connell > > > P.S. I am not having any problems to solve, > > only the people who want me to "dumb way down" > > my posted photos for them are... I suggest > > those still using really old low spec displays find some resizing > > software or something to make them more usable, if they cant be > > bothered to upgrade their "photographically challenged" hardware > > As I stated, the hardware needed to see these > > photos in their entirety is NOT even remotely expensive > > today, so it doesnt make sense to continue > > using those older lower resolution display setups, > > ESCPECIALLY if you are in the demographic of > > a photo enthusiast, and anyone reading this forum IS. > > > > -- > 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Like I said, you haven't a clue to my financial status and capabilities. You have no knowledge of how I came to own any of the digital photo gear that I own - for all your dumb, cracker ass knows they were gifts, or I stole 'em off the back of a truck. You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for you ... and you were doing so well there for a while. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > NOPE, Your argument is futile because > the PC display is JUST a cheap accessory to > go with digital/DSLR photography and its > WAY WAY less costly than the DSLR > and good lenses so what I am arguing > is that it's SENSELESS to be into > DSLR photography AND not upgrade to > current BUT INEXPENSIVE display resolutions > to edit and enjoy those high res. DSLR images > more easily or with higher quality reproduction > The affordability factor is a NON issue > because if you can afford the cameras > and lenses, you can easily afford a good > display monitor setup. I am not saying > anyone can afford a good monitor setup, > I am saying anymore DSLR system owners > can. This is not HDTV, this is digital photography > discussion which is far more relavant to the list... -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: "Tom C" JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > >From: "William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > >>You and I may think he is a fool for doing so, I've never thought that >>shooting oneself in the foot is the smart way to do things, but if it is >>his way, and it works for him, then it's what he is going to do. > > But wait... It is very very smart if your intent is to put a hole in your > foot. jocs done that so often, it'a amazing he can still walk. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Agreed, Shel. After JCO posted his photograph to the list, it was very tactfully, IMHO, pointed out that perhaps he should resize out of consideration for those who will be looking at the photo. It was JCO's reaction to a little constructive criticism that started this bs. If JCO's so adamant about how his photos should be viewed, perhaps he needs to go find a list/forum/public restroom where everyone else thinks the same way. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com Shel Belinkoff wrote: > 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
In a message dated 4/3/2007 12:31:18 P.M. Pacific Daylight Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: It's amazing isn't it? Once again, joc manages to foul things up and cause a ruckus. = I question, like Bob, who is causing the ruckus. Or, to be more accurate, who started it. Marnie ** See what's free at http://www.aol.com. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
- Original Message - From: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > It's amazing isn't it? Once again, joc manages to foul things up and > cause a > ruckus. > = > I question, like Bob, who is causing the ruckus. Or, to be more accurate, > who started it. There is a commonality to these things, if you care to consider it. In this instance, joc apparently posted oversized photos A few people apparently mentioned to him that his pictures were oversized for comfortable web use. Just a wild guess, but I expect that joc started firing volleys about how it was just a Q&D web gallery and if your equipment wasn't up to the task, then you didn't get to view them. I say apparently, and wild guess because I no longer see joc's posts, I sometimes see replies to his posts. I kill filed him so that I wouldn't be subjected to his ignorant antics anymore. I should take it one step further and ask people to put "FF' into the subject line of any reply they make to him or about him.. William Robb -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
I won't do that. I enjoy reading your comments ;-)) Shel > I should take it one step further and ask people to put "FF' into the > subject line of any reply they make to him or about him.. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
nope, I guess you dont understand the difference between choosing to not buy something ( which is fine ) and claiming not being able to afford to buy it. I dont "buy" the argument that ANY DSLR camera and lens system owners ( this is often over a grand) and users cant "afford" a $200 PC display in 2007. It makes no sense to me at all. And even if your stuff was a gift, you would be an extremely rare exception, not the rule... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 3:05 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Like I said, you haven't a clue to my financial status and capabilities. You have no knowledge of how I came to own any of the digital photo gear that I own - for all your dumb, cracker ass knows they were gifts, or I stole 'em off the back of a truck. You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for you ... and you were doing so well there for a while. Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell > NOPE, Your argument is futile because > the PC display is JUST a cheap accessory to > go with digital/DSLR photography and its > WAY WAY less costly than the DSLR > and good lenses so what I am arguing > is that it's SENSELESS to be into > DSLR photography AND not upgrade to > current BUT INEXPENSIVE display resolutions > to edit and enjoy those high res. DSLR images > more easily or with higher quality reproduction > The affordability factor is a NON issue > because if you can afford the cameras > and lenses, you can easily afford a good > display monitor setup. I am not saying > anyone can afford a good monitor setup, > I am saying anymore DSLR system owners > can. This is not HDTV, this is digital photography > discussion which is far more relavant to the list... -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using obsolescent display technology. Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the great HDTV thread). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 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
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
HUH? I never recommedend any specific display technology or told anyone to buy a CRT, I recommended higher resolution displays and TODAY there are a whole bunch of LCDS that DO go much higher than 1280x1024 and for cheap too. YOU are out of touch. At the time I bought this CRT/CARD setup, there were virtually no LCDs that went higher than 1280x1024 but now today there are many many out there. That was the main reason I went with CRT, I wanted/needed the higher resolution that LCDS didnt offer THEN, not now though... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:59 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using obsolescent display technology. Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the great HDTV thread). -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes smaller than 20". 20" and up displays have come down in price a lot recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19" 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good selection of 20"+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been following LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20" Cinema Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > HUH? I never recommedend any specific display > technology or told anyone to buy a CRT, I recommended higher resolution > displays and TODAY there are a whole bunch > of LCDS that DO go much higher than 1280x1024 > and for cheap too. YOU are out of touch. At the > time I bought this CRT/CARD setup, there were virtually > no LCDs that went higher than 1280x1024 but now > today there are many many out there. That was the > main reason I went with CRT, I wanted/needed > the higher resolution that LCDS didnt offer THEN, > not now though... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:59 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using > obsolescent display technology. > > Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find > these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all > > of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who > really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) > and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that > > size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, > and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low > refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly > visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a > flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) > > Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the > great HDTV thread). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> 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
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Fuck you! You don't know me or my situation. As it happens, my DSLR was a gift. And I cannot afford to upgrade my computer gear. I am pretty much unable to work because of some medical issues. And, even if I had the extra money for a higher quality display, I'd probably us the money for a new lens or two and to pay some bills. You seem to forget that I mentioned a need to sell some equipment a while ago, and we discussed - off list - what you might be interested in. I was totally stunned when you replied that you couldn't buy everything I was considering selling. How can anyone like you - a serious lens collector - not be able to afford five or six K-mount lenses. I just don't believe you. SCHMUCK! Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > nope, I guess you dont understand the > difference between choosing to not > buy something ( which is fine ) and > claiming not being able > to afford to buy it. I dont "buy" > the argument that ANY DSLR camera > and lens system owners ( this is > often over a grand) and users > cant "afford" a $200 PC display > in 2007. It makes no sense to me > at all. And even if your stuff > was a gift, you would be an extremely > rare exception, not the rule... > Like I said, you haven't a clue to my financial status and capabilities. > > You have no knowledge of how I came to own any of the digital photo gear > that I own - for all your dumb, cracker ass knows they were gifts, or I > stole 'em off the back of a truck. > > You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for you > ... and you were doing so well there for a while. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
WHAT? I clearly stated that if you really couldnt afford a sub $200 PC AND you were a DSLR/LENS system owner, you WOULD BE the very rare exception, not the rule. I dont see how you can be giving me shit about saying that. Secondly, what "dont you believe" from me? I dont get the K mount lens comment, I have already stated I have have a bunch in earlier threads... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Shel Belinkoff Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:00 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Fuck you! You don't know me or my situation. As it happens, my DSLR was a gift. And I cannot afford to upgrade my computer gear. I am pretty much unable to work because of some medical issues. And, even if I had the extra money for a higher quality display, I'd probably us the money for a new lens or two and to pay some bills. You seem to forget that I mentioned a need to sell some equipment a while ago, and we discussed - off list - what you might be interested in. I was totally stunned when you replied that you couldn't buy everything I was considering selling. How can anyone like you - a serious lens collector - not be able to afford five or six K-mount lenses. I just don't believe you. SCHMUCK! Shel > [Original Message] > From: J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > nope, I guess you dont understand the > difference between choosing to not > buy something ( which is fine ) and > claiming not being able > to afford to buy it. I dont "buy" > the argument that ANY DSLR camera > and lens system owners ( this is > often over a grand) and users > cant "afford" a $200 PC display > in 2007. It makes no sense to me > at all. And even if your stuff > was a gift, you would be an extremely > rare exception, not the rule... > Like I said, you haven't a clue to my financial status and > capabilities. > > You have no knowledge of how I came to own any of the digital photo > gear that I own - for all your dumb, cracker ass knows they were > gifts, or I stole 'em off the back of a truck. > > You have the intelligence of a carrot. Back into the kill file for > you ... and you were doing so well there for a while. -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
DUH, then simply get a 20" high resolution LCD for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had to get a 19" and 20" would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd here, just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, 14",15",17" monitors now too, display "average" sizes move forward, AS DO "average" RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to falll... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes smaller than 20". 20" and up displays have come down in price a lot recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19" 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good selection of 20"+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been following LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20" Cinema Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. -Adam J. C. O'Connell wrote: > HUH? I never recommedend any specific display > technology or told anyone to buy a CRT, I recommended higher > resolution displays and TODAY there are a whole bunch of LCDS that DO > go much higher than 1280x1024 and for cheap too. YOU are out of touch. > At the time I bought this CRT/CARD setup, there were virtually > no LCDs that went higher than 1280x1024 but now > today there are many many out there. That was the > main reason I went with CRT, I wanted/needed > the higher resolution that LCDS didnt offer THEN, > not now though... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 2:59 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using > obsolescent display technology. > > Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find > these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all > > of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who > really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) > and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that > > size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, > and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low > refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly > visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a > flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) > > Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the > great HDTV thread). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Jeez Adam, you've got to see a good 19" crt and video card sometime. I'm using a Hitachi SuperScan Elite 721, with a GForce video card. I run at 1600x1200 with nary a flicker. It blows away any LCD I've ever seen for detail and at 1280x1024 is crisper than any LCD to my eyes. I only wish I could duplicate the subtlety's I see on screen in a print. I'm going to weep real tears when this baby dies and I have to replace it with an LCD. Adam Maas wrote: > Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using > obsolescent display technology. > > Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find > these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all > of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who > really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) > and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that > size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, > and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low > refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly > visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a > flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) > > Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the > great HDTV thread). > > -Adam > > > J. C. O'Connell wrote: > >> 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. >>> >> >> > > > -- Entropy Seminar: The results of a five yeer studee ntu the sekend lw uf thurmodynamiks aand itz inevibl fxt hon shewb rt nslpn raq liot. -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Or cheaper still, present your photos at a slightly smaller resolution. Then it doesn't cost anyone anything. D. On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DUH, then simply get a 20" high resolution LCD > for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had > to get a 19" and 20" would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd > here, > just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, 14",15",17" > monitors now too, display "average" sizes move forward, AS > DO "average" RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to falll... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > Adam Maas > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes > smaller than 20". 20" and up displays have come down in price a lot > recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19" > 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. > > Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for > the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good selection > > of 20"+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been following > > LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20" Cinema > Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 > panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. > > -Adam -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
ARE YOU DEAF, IT COST EVERYONE, namely much lower image quality! If I could send them smaller and maintain quality, of course I would, but I cant! jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:54 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Or cheaper still, present your photos at a slightly smaller resolution. Then it doesn't cost anyone anything. D. On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > DUH, then simply get a 20" high resolution LCD > for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had > to get a 19" and 20" would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd > here, just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, 14",15",17" > monitors now too, display "average" sizes move forward, AS > DO "average" RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to falll... > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of Adam Maas > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes > smaller than 20". 20" and up displays have come down in price a lot > recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19" > 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. > > Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for > the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good > selection > > of 20"+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been > following > > LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20" Cinema > Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 > panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. > > -Adam -- 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Peter, I've seen high-end 19" monitors. Run them too (not for long, as I got a killer deal on my 21"). Yeah, they can be very crisp. But not as crisp as a good LCD running at native resolution off a digital signal (this is inherent to the designs, LCD's have physical pixels and there's always a hint of drift to a CRT's electron beam, softening the individual pixel). CRT's have some distinct advantages (deeper blacks, colour gamut). LCD's are crisper and brighter (the latter can be a disadvantage as well), as long as you're comparing equivalent quality (which would be a higher-end 20" widescreen panel compared to your high-end 19" monitor) Oh, and I'm extremely sensitive to flicker, far more than most people (I easily pick up 60Hz flicker off of fluorescent industrial lighting, and can see flicker at 75Hz on a monitor). Most people don't see any flicker at 72Hz refresh or higher. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > Jeez Adam, you've got to see a good 19" crt and video card sometime. > I'm using a Hitachi SuperScan Elite 721, with a GForce video card. I > run at 1600x1200 with nary a flicker. It blows away any LCD I've ever > seen for detail and at 1280x1024 is crisper than any LCD to my eyes. I > only wish I could duplicate the subtlety's I see on screen in a print. > I'm going to weep real tears when this baby dies and I have to replace > it with an LCD. > > Adam Maas wrote: >> Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using >> obsolescent display technology. >> >> Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find >> these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all >> of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who >> really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) >> and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that >> size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, >> and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low >> refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly >> visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a >> flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) >> >> Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the >> great HDTV thread). >> >> -Adam >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >>> 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
RE: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
A crt image will not be as sharp as a LCD image at the same resolution, but going up the the next size resolution with a good CRT will swamp that minor LCD advantage if the LCD resolution is kept constant...i.e I 1600x1200 on a good CRT is going to look more detailed than a 1280x960 LCD does. The CRT at the higher resolution also yields more workspace than any type of display device at ther next lower resolution. In other words, the sharpness advantage LCD has over good CRTS is only valid if they are both run at same screen resolution and at the native resolution of the lcd of course, jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Adam Maas Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 5:51 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Peter, I've seen high-end 19" monitors. Run them too (not for long, as I got a killer deal on my 21"). Yeah, they can be very crisp. But not as crisp as a good LCD running at native resolution off a digital signal (this is inherent to the designs, LCD's have physical pixels and there's always a hint of drift to a CRT's electron beam, softening the individual pixel). CRT's have some distinct advantages (deeper blacks, colour gamut). LCD's are crisper and brighter (the latter can be a disadvantage as well), as long as you're comparing equivalent quality (which would be a higher-end 20" widescreen panel compared to your high-end 19" monitor) Oh, and I'm extremely sensitive to flicker, far more than most people (I easily pick up 60Hz flicker off of fluorescent industrial lighting, and can see flicker at 75Hz on a monitor). Most people don't see any flicker at 72Hz refresh or higher. -Adam P. J. Alling wrote: > Jeez Adam, you've got to see a good 19" crt and video card sometime. > I'm using a Hitachi SuperScan Elite 721, with a GForce video card. I > run at 1600x1200 with nary a flicker. It blows away any LCD I've ever > seen for detail and at 1280x1024 is crisper than any LCD to my eyes. I > only wish I could duplicate the subtlety's I see on screen in a print. > I'm going to weep real tears when this baby dies and I have to replace > it with an LCD. > > Adam Maas wrote: >> Well, this is ironic considering this is coming from somebody using >> obsolescent display technology. >> >> Those 19" CRT's you're recommending people buy? They're hard to find >> these days. They've been replaced on the market by 19" LCD's. Almost all >> of which have a max resolution of 1280x1024. Why? because anybody who >> really needs more will buy a larger display (like a 20" or 24" panel) >> and 1280x1024 is the most generally usable resolution for a display that >> size. A good LCD at 1280x1024 is much crisper than the equivalent CRT, >> and higher resolutions on CRT's tend to have flickr due to the low >> refresh rate (You may be able to live with 75Hz, but it's clearly >> visible and headache inducing to me. I need 85Hz or better, or a >> flickr-free technology like DVI-driven LCD's) >> >> Analog CRT's are dead technology (a point which you made to me in the >> great HDTV thread). >> >> -Adam >> >> >> J. C. O'Connell wrote: >> >>> 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 >>> >>> >>>
Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
Then your not trying hard enough. On 4/5/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ARE YOU DEAF, IT COST EVERYONE, namely much lower > image quality! If I could send them smaller and > maintain quality, of course I would, but I cant! > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Savage > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:54 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > Or cheaper still, present your photos at a slightly smaller resolution. > Then it doesn't cost anyone anything. > > D. > > On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DUH, then simply get a 20" high resolution LCD > > for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had > > to get a 19" and 20" would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd > > here, just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, 14",15",17" > > monitors now too, display "average" sizes move forward, AS > > DO "average" RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to falll... > > jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Adam Maas > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: > > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > > There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in sizes > > smaller than 20". 20" and up displays have come down in price a lot > > recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a 19" > > 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. > > > > Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution for > > the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good > > selection > > > > of 20"+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been > > following > > > > LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20" Cinema > > > Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 > > panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. > > > > -Adam > > -- > 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: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach...
IMPOSSIBLE! lower rez is lower rez, there is no way around that little fact... jco -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 8:29 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... Then your not trying hard enough. On 4/5/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > ARE YOU DEAF, IT COST EVERYONE, namely much lower > image quality! If I could send them smaller and > maintain quality, of course I would, but I cant! > jco > > -Original Message- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > Of David Savage > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 10:54 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: Re: > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > Or cheaper still, present your photos at a slightly smaller > resolution. Then it doesn't cost anyone anything. > > D. > > On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > DUH, then simply get a 20" high resolution LCD > > for cheap. I never insisted that anyone had > > to get a 19" and 20" would be a problem. You are arguing the absurd > > here, just to argue from what I can see. Its hard to get, > > 14",15",17" monitors now too, display "average" sizes move forward, > > AS DO "average" RESOLUTIONS, even while the prices continue to > > falll... jco > > > > -Original Message- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Adam Maas > > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 3:52 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: > > WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > > > > There are essentially no desktop LCD's that exceed 1280x1024 in > > sizes smaller than 20". 20" and up displays have come down in price > > a lot recently, but they still command a fairly large premium over a > > 19" 1280x1024 display, with little gain for most users. > > > > Also there's been plenty of LCD options over 1280x1024 resolution > > for the last 5 years. They just weren't cheap. There's been a good > > selection > > > > of 20"+ LCD's that run higher resolutions as long as I've been > > following > > > > LCD display technology (which is since Apple introduced the 20" > > Cinema > > > Display around 5 years ago). The selection hasn't changed much (1-2 > > panels at any one time from each major brand) but the pricing has. > > > > -Adam > > -- > 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...
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
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
