[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > JCO, > > Problem is, lots of us are drinking thru a very narrow straw. > > Regards, Bob S. > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > > << I vote for larger picture dimentions and filesizes. > It's 2002 for christs sake, were using 1992 size > images. > > JCO >> > -
IF you have your monitor set, as I do, at 800 x 640, the images are plenty big. I only have a Dell Pentium III and a dial-up modem. I make my jpgs for ebay 600 x 600 at 96 dpi - they almost take up the entire screen when I look at them in my browser. I'm most bothered by images that are so big that I cant see the whole picture on my monitor. I have it set at 800 x 640 because it is better for my eyes. Every thing in large font too. It is a rather elitist attitude to just make things work for only those with the best hardware and most advanced software. I would like my photos to be viewed by as many people as possible, wouldn't you? Let me "ditto" as well all of Paul S's comments regarding this stuff - it has always been my impression that this was pretty much how it worked. And those three pix on Shel's page look exactly the same to me, too. However, when I first designed my home page I lacked a lot in knowledge (not that I have a lot now) about the workings of the making of web files and while the banner looks great to me on Netscape, people on Aol see a lot of mush. (A lack of sharpness,etc.) Rather like what Sid is disappointed in when he looks at his flowers on the web. annsan - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
