Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote: > On Jun 21, 2006, at 3:12 AM, Keith McGuinness wrote: > >> But if you want to look at ALL the photos in the gallery you do >> have to download ALL the full resolution files... > > That's at your option. If the work is compelling enough to be worth > the time, you do it. If not, you don't. I'd much rather look at five > high quality photographs than a hundred poor quality ones.
But surely one point of a themed gallery is that people can see what other people have done with the theme. And that suggests that most people who look at the gallery are going to want to download most of the files. (I personally can't get much of an idea from the thumbnails.) That suggests that the gallery should be accessible to as many people as possible. YOU are entitled to your choices about what to download and look at BUT I don't think that your preferences should determine what other people can do. > Is that "elitist"? If so, folks will have to get used to it, or > not ... I really don't care. I have no intention of saying that I'd > rather look at large numbers of mediocre quality photographs. I > won't, I don't. I call that honesty, not elitism. As above, you can do what you want. As Shel said, some people routinely post large pictures. Every such picture (a) loads slowly and (b) costs me money. I've done a reasonable amount of experimenting with JPEG settings and I am fairly sure that the size of most could be considerably reduced with minimal loss of quality. At the end of the day, that's up to the person posting the picture. But the larger the file, the less accessible it is going to be, and that, to me, seems to rather defeat the purpose of posting. Especially for a gallery. Keith McG -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
