See, I looked and thought "Meh.. some fountain picture". Then I noticed a horde of replies so I decided maybe I should take a gander. This might be some cool image. Half an hour later there it is. (Full disclosure: It may not have taken half an hour but it opened in another window so I forgot about the picture after it wasn't loaded the first two times I checked)
It's a pretty ok image, IMO. I'm not sure I like the angle of view. I'd probably try another. What I'd like to know: Who will be the first person to introduce himself at GFM as Polyhead? HAR! CW Didn't click any further into the images but then, he doesn't care so why bother? ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob Blakely" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" <pdml@pdml.net> Sent: Wednesday, December 19, 2007 5:29 PM Subject: Re: Portland Fountains > This is boring and purile! Do I have to butt in and show you fellas how to > have an artful flame war? > > Regards, > Bob... > ----------------------------------------------------------------- > Note: No trees were killed in the sending of this message, > but a large number of electrons were terribly inconvenienced. > > From: "Adam Maas" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > >> On 12/19/07, Polyhead <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> "John Celio" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >>> >>> > >> >I also refuse to use jpeg, png or nothing. >>> > >> >>> > >> Wow. That's bizarre. >>> > > >>> > > Hardly, jpeg is lossy compression. It grabs a square of pixels and >>> > > averages them, you lose both dynamic range and resolution with >>> > > jpeg. PNG is lossless and opensource. The other problem with jpeg >>> > > is that because of the way it handles compression, it chokes on >>> > > film grain. There isn't a way to feed a jpeg encoder a image with >>> > > allot of film grain and have it spit out a reasonable result. >>> > > People use it because they just don't know any better. >>> > >>> > You're talking about displaying photographs on the internet, which is >>> > meant >>> > to be a way of sharing information quickly and easily. Image >>> > compression >>> > quality takes a back seat most of the time around here, and no one >>> > else >>> > seems to be complaining about it. >>> > >>> > Your elitist attitude is grating. If you really don't care about what >>> > others think of your photos, why bother posting them in the first >>> > place? >>> >>> I thought they may enjoy it, I was wrong, instead they looked for >>> something to complain about. Typical of the bulk of people really. >> >> I've got more bandwidth than God when I'm at work. I work for the >> company formerly known as UUNET. I've got straight 100MB Full-Duplex >> connections directly to the alter.net backbone. Your site is still too >> slow. PNG is NOT a format for rendering photographic output. If fact >> you probably couldn't have picked a worse format (Well, GIF, but it's >> got all the bad points of PNG with the addition of patent >> encumbrance). JPEG is the only commonly supported graphics format >> suited to web display of photographic images. Yes, it does have some >> bad points, but a max quality JPEG with smaller, lower-quality >> thumbnails will produce similar quality output (visually >> indistinguishable for the full-size image) with far better page render >> speeds (because your thumbnail's won't be 20x the size they need to >> be). > > > -- > PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List > PDML@pdml.net > http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net > to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and > follow the directions. > > > -- > No virus found in this incoming message. > Checked by AVG Free Edition. > Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.17.4 - Release Date: 12/16/2007 > 12:00 AM > > -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List PDML@pdml.net http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
