Godfrey - Sorry - but you frequently post acid and sarcastic stuff and I very seldome do, frankly I might have been more gentle if it wasnt so hot here and I was not so exhausted - Yeah, I hit the send button quickly and I probably should have written you off line and more gently.
I said ODD because you were calling something technical Difficult. I do sometimes think that the more sophisticated versions of programs look like somethings are more difficult. Please note that I called you talented and smart and regretted what I perceive as a Herbert Spencerian attitude tht appeared on this thread and on other posts. And I've seen you get into lots more scrapes than you have seen me do. I'm not saying, btw, YOU necessarily posted things too large - but many people do and some I certainly consider friends. I just cant open them at all sometimes and if I see it say " 1% of 500k" on the bottom of my browser, I'm outta there. None of anyone's photos are gonna look their best on line, right? But what you said sounded snobby to me - and your tone still does. YOu were absolutely right on and eloquent describing a how to to me recently, I applaud you loudly for that, but you do tend to have a short fuse on list I'm also not quite as pissed as I sounded and I hope that is true of you too. Apology for tone and crankiness on my part - but not for my opinion. ann Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > > 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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
