Yes John. D.
On 4/4/07, J. C. O'Connell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > YOU ARE CLUELESS, these old cars have > MUCH MORE fine detail to see then > you are guessing, I KNOW, as I am > privy to the full size originals, > And as I reduced them in size they > looked worse and worse. These arent like today's "blob" > cars... > > Secondly, these were NOT sent to the general > public, they were sent to a PHOTO group, > and I stand by my earlier comments > that a photo group has a higher standard > of quality and a higher than average > PC display capability so it makes > no sense to DUMB DOWn/DEGRADE the photos > any more than necessary. I dont see > the point of sendin these to low spec > displays in the first place, they are > not going to be able to appreciate > them anyway if aize over-reduced. > > jco > > -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of > David Savage > Sent: Wednesday, April 04, 2007 4:19 AM > To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List > Subject: > RE:RE:WebGallery:Barrett-JacksonCollectorCarAuctions2007WestPalmBeach... > > > 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 > > > -- > 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
