A footnote: You are correct, Shel, in saying that Frank need not apologize for complaining about large images. As I said, I generally scale them down. However, when I want to emphasize sharpness or resolution, I'll sometimes make them large enough so they fill the screen completely at that 1024 x 768 size. I rarely go larger. Paul
> I disagree. Most common size, as I understand it, is 1024w X 768h ... and > one must allow room for browser borders and other such peripheral things. > Keeping height to no more than 650, even less depending on how the image is > presented, is really a good way to go, IMO. No need to apologize frank - I > don't think you've been "set straight" anyway. > > Shel > > > > [Original Message] > > From: frank theriault > > > On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 06:37:37 -0500, Paul Stenquist > > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Hi Frank, > > > I think most photographers are running monitors with 1050 pixels on the > > > vertical. But I've been keeping my files smaller lately after some > > > complaints. > > > Paul > > > > > > > Hi, Paul, > > > > I didn't realize that. I'll keep the diatribes down to a dull roar > > from now on. <vbg> > > > > Thanks for setting my straight, and my apologies to all. > >
