I applaud Jim's visualisation, but there's something about the resolution (or
something) on-screen that bothers me. I don't know quite what it is.
So I wonder if Jim has sized the image to precisely the width that the host
page will accept as maximum?
I ask this since I have found that such sites will resize images that exceed
their arbitrary maximum. Two examples:
Facebook, for individual albums, requires that an image be no more than
604 pixels wide. Any more than that and their own software will resize it. The
resolution and file size will suffer greatly, and the displayed image will show
it.
oldfriends ( www.oldfriends.co.nz), similarly impose a maximum width of
submitted image of 580 pixels. Any more, and their processes will degrade
the uploaded image.
For example, this ** copy of a childhood school photo was awful until I
determined their maximum size and observed their unwritten rule.
http://www.oldfriends.co.nz/InstitutionPhotoView.aspx?id=112625
(see me in this one, but I didn't copy it!, and Elizabeth wouldn't have
observed the unwritten rule)
http://www.oldfriends.co.nz/InstitutionPhotoView.aspx?id=112852
and my grandfather in 1932 ... **
http://www.oldfriends.co.nz/InstitutionPhotoView.aspx?id=110715
Photos ** were copied using an E-1 with Zuiko 50/3.5 macro. Probably
resized and sharpened etc using Irfanview
Cheers
Brian Swale. Daytime phone 03 326 7447
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|