On Jun 20, 2006, at 8:22 PM, Ann Sanfedele wrote: > Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: >> >> Well, I wasn't going to respond unless I at least attempted to submit >> something to the PUG. So I tried. Nevertheless, I'm not offended. ;-) >> >> Even a *small* rendering of a photo, 500x400 pixels, compressed at >> median JPEG settings, is difficult to upload with a 75K limitation. > > Odd - It seems to me to be very easy. I try to keep > everything I put on the web anywhere > at less than 100k. There are still plenty of people out > there who are on dial-up (including me) > or using older equipment - wouldn't you rather your images > reached out to more people and not > just those who either because of location or finances find a > 500k file at the least a PITA to > deal with? > > Most people are not pixel counting when they look at photos > on the web... the medium should > not be the message. > > You are talented and really tech savvy Godfrey, but > sometimes you really are an extreme elitist - > it isn't an attractive trait.
Annsan, I don't know you at all. I've never had anything nasty to say about or to you. When you've asked a question that I could help with, I've always tried to answer with correct, solid information when I could. I've commented on your photos when I could. Why would you want to insult me for no fucking reason? Oh, I forgot: this is the PDML, where any sob can just slag off anyone else because they want to. Excuse me, lady, but you're just out of line. If you want to just slag me off, I'll tell you where to stick your head. Didn't your mother teach you manners? That was rude: you owe me an apology. I post my web photographs to standardized size and resolution, specifically designed to permit reasonable quality presentation and a modest size for slow connections and modest sized screens. Most of them are between 65 and 100K in size, a few are larger but not by much. I have never received a negative comment indicating that they were too large or too slow to download. And when I post a larger, higher resolution image for folks to enjoy a little more quality, I let them know that it's available as an option if they would like to see them in that rendering without pushing it to them unawares. [begin sarcasm] Yeah, that's extremely elitist. How silly of me to think otherwise. [end sarcasm] I have a photograph I wanted to upload to the PUG to support the effort. I feel that efforts like the PUG serve hobbyists well and I enjoy participating. There is no way I can post my picture there without reducing it to a presentation that, in my opinion (which is the ONLY opinion about MY photographs that really matters, ya know?), offers it as less that I'm satisfied with. I didn't blame or call anyone anything. I reported a problem that prevents me from participating. The standard of 75K per image maximum is arbitrary and out of date. It was a big file when most communications happened at 12-27Kbps and most screens were 640x480 pixels in size. It isn't anymore. This limitation should be corrected, if the PUG wants to continue to serve a useful function. Even for a hobbyist with a dial up connection it is not a burden to increase the size requirement by 50%. BTW ... Annsan: I don't need your approval or your good will. But an apology would show you have manners and would allow me to respect you again, something that I would find enjoyable. Godfrey -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
