If you cant actually rebutt anything the post, I suggest you shut the hell up! These type of "now your in the trash bin, but I cant say why" replies are absolutely USELESS.... and unethical to boot. jco
-----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Scott Loveless Sent: Monday, April 02, 2007 11:30 AM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: Re: WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... J. C. O'Connell wrote: > huh? I dont follow. What I am saying is EVEN IN A WEB > photo, there is a huge difference in what you can > see/image quality between a 1200 wide image and a > a 800 wide image. (2.25 times the resolution) this has nothing to do > with full rez. prints which of course are better than > either size web photos. Actually, once you get > down to web size images, the losses in changing > photo sizes are nearly 100% loss. At very large > size images ( near the resolution of the camera > and lenses) there is less loss with similar > reductions in photo size. ( like if you go from > 3000 pixels wide to 2000 pixels wide, has less detail > loss than going from 1200 to 800, even though the > reduction in pixel percentage is the same). > jco > > Back to the trash bin for you. Woohoo. -- Scott Loveless www.twosixteen.com -- 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
