On 27 August 2010 04:04, Daniel J. Matyola <[email protected]> wrote:
> In any event, one thing that bothers me is the way the size limitation > is structured. The recommended image size is 600 pixels high. There > is no stated limit on width, however. That means the images in > portrait orientation are much smaller -- in both the thumbnail and the > "full" size -- than images in landscape orientation or even square > images. I think that it makes it more difficult to get a portrait > image in the gallery and worse, it makes it harder to appreciate those > in the gallery that are in portrait orientation and therefore quite > reduced in size. Has anyone else noticed this? I think the World's gone landscape in the digital realm, the tendency towards video and wide aspect ratio monitors has left portrait orientated images as a legacy of sorts, basically suitable for print only, it's a pity. In any case I stay away from the PPG, I find the interface slow and hideous and I don't subscribe to their philosophy regarding selection, basically it's a crapshoot, if you partake you have to be tolerant of the foibles of the system. -- Rob Studdert (Digital Image Studio) Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List [email protected] http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow the directions.
