Paul,
the Irfanview (a freeware image viewer/editor, like ACDsee) can
create HTML pages with thumbnails and links to larger files in
its thumbnail mode. www.irfanview.com I think. The files are
pretty simple-coded, that makes them easy to edit like adding
your own
Thanks Frantisek. I'll check it out. I have to get back to working on
the website, but I'm having too much fun taking photographs.
Paul
Frantisek Vlcek wrote:
Paul,
the Irfanview (a freeware image viewer/editor, like ACDsee) can
create HTML pages with thumbnails and links to larger
Paul,
Thanks for the reply. I've read alot of the comments posted by other pdml
folk and will go with the advice shared here. My post only appeared
yesterday, look when I sent it(24th Dec.)! I will start on this on Ist Jan.
Malcolm -)
Thanks. I invested a couple of hours in trying to find
Thanks. I invested a couple of hours in trying to find some method of
putting up a web site. Once I found a means of accomplishing it (thanks to
Shel), it only took a couple of hours or less to construct. However, I want
to remake it with thumbnails, rather than a bunch of large photos coming up
Dan Scott wrote:
How are they turning out? Still happy?
You bet. I'm very pleased with the 6x7 format and the 150/2.8. The camera is a
joy, and the lens seems quite sharp with great color rendition.
Paul
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go to
I agree with Shel and advice against Netscape Composer.
However, most visual editors produce more code than really needed.
Microsoft Word and FrontPage are some of the worst examples, but it
seems that none are perfect. The real problem with this is, imo, that
the code is totally unreadable
Thanks for the tips, Jostein. I'm going to see if I can find Allaire
Homesite.
Paul
Jostein wrote:
I agree with Shel and advice against Netscape Composer.
However, most visual editors produce more code than really needed.
Microsoft Word and FrontPage are some of the worst examples, but it
Paul ...
I believe that you might be better off writing some simple code
yourself, just using a text editor. I use Notepad and put my entire
site together with just that and some HTML checking programs to be sure
there were no errors in the code. My site is simple, but as Jostein
mentioned,
In local.pentax, you wrote:
I guess I'm going to try to learn as much as I can. Richard's site si quite
stunning on my browser and screen. However I'm at 1280 x 1024, and my simple
Click and Build looks good on my monitor as well. Wouldn't it be nice if there
was a consistent standard? I suppose
Thanks Johan.
Johan Schoone wrote:
In local.pentax, you wrote:
I guess I'm going to try to learn as much as I can. Richard's site si quite
stunning on my browser and screen. However I'm at 1280 x 1024, and my simple
Click and Build looks good on my monitor as well. Wouldn't it be nice if
Looks good Paul. I entered a local paper competition recently and, to my
astonishment, won some web building software. I can now see a use for it;
how much time have you invested in this? Your photos have very varied
subjects - most interesting.
Malcolm
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL
On Sun, 23 Dec 2001 20:58:23 -0500, you wrote:
After considerable knashing of teeth and whining to Shel about how hard
this is, I have finally managed to construct the beginnings of a
website.
Good for you. I worried two years about how hard it must be, then one
Friday night decided to take
Thanks Wendy,
I'll probably end up replacing the whole site with some other templates,
perhaps the PUG style or one of Shel's. The pages I used are from Earthlink's
Click Build system, which is fairly inflexible as far as I can tell. In
other words, you can't modify things or move them around.
Paul,
I enjoyed your website photos, particularly the Mexico City sanctuary
(though it's a shame the top part of the sanctuary is slightly cropped -
still, can't have everything!) and I was amazed by the colors in leaf and
pine.
As far as your website construction is concerned, could
I highly recommend against Composer. I've used it, and it produces
messy code with - at least in the version I've used - enough slop and
incompatibility with several browsers to make it, if not useless in some
situations, a poor choice.
I've been playing around writing with writing HTML by hand
Thanks for the tip. I have Composer as part of Netscape Communicator. I thought
I might redo my site based on the PUG format. That would give me a lot of
linked thumbnails to work with. You're right about being complacent once
something is up. But I'm going to try not to do that. I visited your
I guess I'm going to try to learn as much as I can. Richard's site si quite
stunning on my browser and screen. However I'm at 1280 x 1024, and my simple
Click and Build looks good on my monitor as well. Wouldn't it be nice if there
was a consistent standard? I suppose it's coming, but it may take
If you check out Richard's code you'll see that he appears to have used
a program other than Composer to create the site. Further, he's used
some specific coding that allows the page to come up in a readable form
on many browsers and screen sizes. However, being readable is not
always the same
Shel Belinkoff wrote:
I suppose it's like the difference between
manual and automatic cameras - and you know on which side of that
argument I stand g
I'm right there with you on that one, pal.
Have a good one.
Paul
-
This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe,
go
19 matches
Mail list logo
