At 02:59 PM 4/04/2007, J. C. O'Connell wrote: >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.
Sorry, but that's the wrong attitude to take when displaying images for public consumption (this includes the PDML). If people have to change a setting or buy a new piece of hardware, then the pictures ain't worth the effort. Certain types of photos benefit from increased resolution, a gnarled old tree, the aged steel beams of an old bridge, basically anything with texture. Pictures of shinny cars don't suffer nearly as much for being down sized for web viewing. They just don't have the fine detail to loose. >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 There is no right or wrong. This is a personal preference thing. For me to be able to comfortably read text at 1600x1200 I have to bump up the font size to 120 DPI, thus negating the benefit of the extra resolution. Belive me I've tried it, and it doesn't work for me. D. >-----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 -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
