THANK YOU- YOU FINALLY GET IT. YES THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT I AM SAYING "SCREW YOU - UPGRADE YOUR HARDWARE" Why? Because its ridiculous to be telling me to reduce my images size AND QUALITY any further when they display fine on my SUB $200 display which is not extraordinary, not state of the art & not even remotely expensive. I am not going to cater to very old crappy display resolution setups if it means I have to degrade the images for everyone, even those with reasonably modern resolutions.
SECONDLY, I DO NOT AGREE that higher resolution setups mean you have to degrade ANY pc usage. I have found that the higher resolution setups I have gone to over the years GREATLY ENHANCED the entire PC usage experience, NOT just photo viewing. More workspace means more information at a glance, less scrolling of webpages INCLUDING TEXT ONLY WEBPAGES, ETC. I think many people here could be mislead by your comments thinking that higher resolution displays are only good for viewing photos. It makes just about everything you do on a PC easier to do, THE VERY THING THE ORIGINAL "COMPLAINERS" WERE ASKING FOR...So thats why my reply was, and still is : UPGRADE YOUR PC DISPLY RESOLUTION. It for your own benefit, not mine... JCO -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of David Savage Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:27 PM To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List Subject: RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... At 01:39 AM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >ARE YOU ALSO RETARDED? Yes. I like ICE CREEEEEEEEEAM!!!!!! > THERE IS NOTHING WRONG WITH >MY PRESENTATION - ITS YOUR FUCKING LOW SPEC COMPUTER >DISPLAY THAT CANT HANDLE THE QUALITY OF THE PRESENTATION THATST THE >PROBLEM. DONT BLAME ME FOR YOUR SHITTY SETUP OR EXPECT ME TO "DUMB >DOWN"/DEGRADE MY IMAGES TO SUIT YOUR "SHIT" DISPLAY. You know sweet F.A. about my system. Image processing is only 1 of many things I use my computer for. 1600x1200 may be great for Photoshop, but I find it useless for web browsing, Word, Excel & CAD. I've compromised and settled on 2 19" monitors running at 1280x1024 each. Your just angry because you've found out your assumptions regarding PDML screen resolutions were incorrect, and you can't admit that fact. Also, it you had paid attention to posts discussing this very topic (ie PDML member preferred screen resolutions) in the past, you would have known your assumptions were wrong. Even though you say you put the gallery together for the PDML, and several members commented that the shots were a bit large, you seem unwilling to simply say "OK, I'll know better next time". Instead you've basically said "Screw you! Upgrade your hardware." Kisses, Dave >JCO > >-----Original Message----- >From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of >David Savage >Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 10:51 AM >To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List >Subject: Re: >RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > >No I understood what you said. > >The photo's you posted were fine for what they are and from what I saw. >But because they are the resolution they are I only looked at 1 or 2 at >full size because I couldn't view them without having to scroll around. >It annoyed me, so I stopped looking. > >IMO if you want people to view your images and make comments, you >shouldn't piss them off with a shithouse presentation. Web design 101. > >Dave > >On 4/3/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > I assume Mark Roberts and or David Savage didnt read or understand > > my post remarking that this wasnt posted for the "the rest of the > > internet population", it was posted only to a photo group which > > should have in my honest opinion, a HIGHER atandard of image quality > > and a HIGHER than average spec of computer display for photo viewing > > than "the rest of the internet > > population". This matters.... > > jco > > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf > > Of Mark Roberts > > Sent: Tuesday, April 03, 2007 9:08 AM > > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > > Subject: Re: > > RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach.. > > . > > > > > > David Savage wrote: > > > > >All I know is your bucking a lot of tried and true practices for > > >displaying images on the web to suit your vision of how the rest of > > >the internet using population should be working. > > > > Given the person whom you are addressing, does this surprise you at > > all? > > > > > > -- > > 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 > > > >-- >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 -- 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
