Moose and others,
I'm compiling a website for my pictures and I'm thinking of the photo size.
I think that two grasp an image it has to fit on the screen, but would you
say that it's necessary to be able to view a larger than screen size to tell
if it's a good image (rather say "is the photographer handy with the camera
and scanner...") Lets say that 800x800 covers both landscape and portrait
pictures and fits most screens but, would you like to be able to see the
pictures in lets say with a side of 2000 pixels?
Any thoughts? The aim of the coming site is to promote me and some of my
pictures (and keep the National Tax Board happy).
/ Johan
--
http://privat.johanmalmstrom.se
icq: 20012555
aim: johanplupp
Den/At 04-02-11 06.50 skrev/wrote "Moose" <[olymoose@xxxxxxxxxxxx]>:
>
> I like the new size. One can see so much more and there is less loss
> from compression. Closer to looking at a real picture instead of a
> postage stamp. On some photographer's sites ths images are so small I
> can't imagine how anyone could tell whether they are any good or not.
>
> Moose
>
> watershed@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
>> I'm enjoying the latest TOPE. Some pretty good stuff already and more to
>> come no doubt. Thanks again for making this possible Olafo.
>>
>> Regarding the new size standards, anyone else having trouble viewing
>> some of the photos without having to scroll?
>> Mike
>> still technologically in the last century :>(
>>
> Sorry about that!
>
>
> The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
> To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
>
> To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
> List Problem"
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|