While everybody's photos are nice, and that's why we look at them,
nevertheless I find myself drawn to the ones that are less than 500 kb in
size. Padraig's "Rufous Hummer" is only 144 Kb, and loads very quickly, for
those of us with dial-up and other slower computers.And it's a fantastically
clear photo, and fits into my monitor with only a little moving R/L or
Up/Down.

Photos of over 1 Mb are usually ignored by me because they are, frankly, far
too large to fit on my monitor, so I have to do a lot of scrolling. So I
never get to see the whole photo.

I hope I haven't offended anybody over this but I just think there must be
a way for people to reduce their picture size so their photos don't take so
long to load, and also fit on the monitors of their viewers. Padraig has
done this, and hats off to him.

s.

joevan wrote:

Learning to use a computer is a big thing. If you can't figure out how
to work out things then do not put the blame on the posters.
Download, Irfanview, learn how simple it is to make things work.
If you need help ask.

He said he has dial up and it is a valid point. Using Irfanview won't help a
dial up or slower computer user.

Large files don't make a bad photo better, however it's up to the poster if
he/she wants everyone to see their photos or just a few who can be bothered
to down load large files.
For the record, I am on broadband, but also rarely look at photos over
500kb. I have very limited spare time and can't be bothered with photos that
don't download extremely fast.

Marutchi wrote:
| joevan wrote:
|
|| Learning to use a computer is a big thing. If you can't figure out
|| how to work out things then do not put the blame on the posters.
|| Download, Irfanview, learn how simple it is to make things work.
|| If you need help ask.
|
| He said he has dial up and it is a valid point. Using Irfanview
won't
| help a dial up or slower computer user.
|
| Large files don't make a bad photo better, however it's up to the
| poster if he/she wants everyone to see their photos or just a few
who
| can be bothered to down load large files.
| For the record, I am on broadband, but also rarely look at photos
over
| 500kb. I have very limited spare time and can't be bothered with
| photos that don't download extremely fast.

IAWM and if I can't view on the screen without extra clicks I don't
bother, windows picture fax viewer will resize to fit but to much
bother ;-) ok I am lazy

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:26:46 -0000, "someone"
wrote:

While everybody's photos are nice, and that's why we look at them,
nevertheless I find myself drawn to the ones that are less than 500 kb in
size. Padraig's "Rufous Hummer" is only 144 Kb, and loads very quickly, for
those of us with dial-up and other slower computers.And it's a fantastically
clear photo, and fits into my monitor with only a little moving R/L or
Up/Down.

Photos of over 1 Mb are usually ignored by me because they are, frankly, far
too large to fit on my monitor, so I have to do a lot of scrolling. So I
never get to see the whole photo.

I hope I haven't offended anybody over this but I just think there must be
a way for people to reduce their picture size so their photos don't take so
long to load, and also fit on the monitors of their viewers. Padraig has
done this, and hats off to him.

s.



Learning to use a computer is a big thing. If you can't figure out how
to work out things then do not put the blame on the posters.
Download, Irfanview, learn how simple it is to make things work.
If you need help ask.

"Kiwi in Aus" wrote after
Marutchi wrote:
| joevan wrote:
|
|| Learning to use a computer is a big thing. If you can't figure out
|| how to work out things then do not put the blame on the posters.
|| Download, Irfanview, learn how simple it is to make things work.
|| If you need help ask.
|
| He said he has dial up and it is a valid point. Using Irfanview
won't
| help a dial up or slower computer user.
|
| Large files don't make a bad photo better, however it's up to the
| poster if he/she wants everyone to see their photos or just a few
who
| can be bothered to down load large files.
| For the record, I am on broadband, but also rarely look at photos
over
| 500kb. I have very limited spare time and can't be bothered with
| photos that don't download extremely fast.

IAWM and if I can't view on the screen without extra clicks I don't
bother, windows picture fax viewer will resize to fit but to much
bother ;-) ok I am lazy

Personally I try to keep any photos well under 500 for the reasons the
original poster states, I remember dial-up too well. (To resize photos I use
Roxio Photosuite which I've used since version 3)
I also have some sympathy with Kiwi as I cannot be bothered to sort out
Y-enc files myself, I've tried but it's never worked properly and is just
too complicated to bother with, so like a lot of others here I suspect** I
simply ignore y-enc files.
** I say that as it's noticeable that Y-enc photos seem to get few
responses.

Tin hat on, ducks back into trench! :-)
--
Regards
Bob H
17mls W. of London.UK

One thing that makes this stuff a little tricky is that file size (in
kb or posted lines) is not only related to the X-by-Y resolution of
the image, but also to the "complexity" of the image. This is because
of the way file compression works. When there are large expanses of
homogenous color (like the background of "Rufous") then the data
compression algorithm is more efficient and the file ends up being
smaller relative to a more complex image of the same X-Y pixel size.
There isn't much the poster can do to control this effect.

Different folks have different resources available. Even on my DSL
line I try to avoid postings over 10,000 lines as too time consuming
to be bothered with. On the other hand, I have a 19" monitor and I
prefer images of at least 1024x768 because smaller ones just don't
show enough detail to be interesting. This means that I also don't
usually bother downloading postings less than 2,000 lines either.
Altogether, IMO, 1024x768 is a reasonable compromise for photo
posting, but we also need to realize that the actual file-size will
vary quite a bit even then, depending on the subject matter.

JD


On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:26:46 -0000, "someone"
wrote:

While everybody's photos are nice, and that's why we look at them,
nevertheless I find myself drawn to the ones that are less than 500 kb in
size. Padraig's "Rufous Hummer" is only 144 Kb, and loads very quickly, for
those of us with dial-up and other slower computers.And it's a fantastically
clear photo, and fits into my monitor with only a little moving R/L or
Up/Down.

Photos of over 1 Mb are usually ignored by me because they are, frankly, far
too large to fit on my monitor, so I have to do a lot of scrolling. So I
never get to see the whole photo.

I hope I haven't offended anybody over this but I just think there must be
a way for people to reduce their picture size so their photos don't take so
long to load, and also fit on the monitors of their viewers. Padraig has
done this, and hats off to him.

s.



Canon 10D
EXIF Data Included
e-mail: blissful-wind(at)usa.net

Additional images at;
http://www.flickr.com/photos/john-pa/

Ya? Try having just a big 12inch normal screen, anything that size doe not
get Downloaded as it's to big to be seen onscreen all at one time.


--
There are those who believe that life here, began out there, far across the
universe, with tribes of humans, who may have been the forefathers of the
Egyptians, or the Toltecs, or the Mayans. Some believe that they may yet be
brothers of man, who even now fight to survive, somewhere beyond the
heavens.


The Lone Sidewalk Astronomer of Rosamond
Telescope Buyers FAQ
http://home.inreach.com/starlord
Sidewalk Astronomy
www.sidewalkastronomy.info
The Church of Eternity
http://home.inreach.com/starlord/church/Eternity.html


John - Pa. wrote in message
...
One thing that makes this stuff a little tricky is that file size (in

"Bob Hobden" wrote in message
...

"Kiwi in Aus" wrote after
Marutchi wrote:
| joevan wrote:
|
|| Learning to use a computer is a big thing. If you can't figure out
|| how to work out things then do not put the blame on the posters.
|| Download, Irfanview, learn how simple it is to make things work.
|| If you need help ask.
|
| He said he has dial up and it is a valid point. Using Irfanview
won't
| help a dial up or slower computer user.
|
| Large files don't make a bad photo better, however it's up to the
| poster if he/she wants everyone to see their photos or just a few
who
| can be bothered to down load large files.
| For the record, I am on broadband, but also rarely look at photos
over
| 500kb. I have very limited spare time and can't be bothered with
| photos that don't download extremely fast.

IAWM and if I can't view on the screen without extra clicks I don't
bother, windows picture fax viewer will resize to fit but to much
bother ;-) ok I am lazy

Personally I try to keep any photos well under 500 for the reasons the
original poster states, I remember dial-up too well. (To resize photos I
use
Roxio Photosuite which I've used since version 3)
I also have some sympathy with Kiwi as I cannot be bothered to sort out
Y-enc files myself, I've tried but it's never worked properly and is just
too complicated to bother with, so like a lot of others here I suspect** I
simply ignore y-enc files.
** I say that as it's noticeable that Y-enc photos seem to get few
responses.

Tin hat on, ducks back into trench! :-)
--

Whew, glad I'm not the only one in that trench! In Runnymede, isn't it?

s.

On Sat, 24 Mar 2007 23:26:46 -0000, "someone"
wrote:

Photos of over 1 Mb are usually ignored by me because they are, frankly, far
too large to fit on my monitor, so I have to do a lot of scrolling. So I
never get to see the whole photo.

While I completely agree about large file sizes, the size of the picture
on your monitor should be controlled by your viewing software. Whatever
you are using should have an option to automatically reduce large images
to screen or desktop size. If your viewer doesn't do this try
downloading Irfanview

www.Irfanview.com

it is very good and does a lot more than just display pictures.
--

09=ix

"someone" wrote in message
...
While everybody's photos are nice, and that's why we look at them,
nevertheless I find myself drawn to the ones that are less than 500 kb in
size. Padraig's "Rufous Hummer" is only 144 Kb, and loads very quickly,
for
those of us with dial-up and other slower computers.And it's a
fantastically
clear photo, and fits into my monitor with only a little moving R/L or
Up/Down.

Photos of over 1 Mb are usually ignored by me because they are, frankly,
far
too large to fit on my monitor, so I have to do a lot of scrolling. So I
never get to see the whole photo.

I hope I haven't offended anybody over this but I just think there must
be
a way for people to reduce their picture size so their photos don't take
so
long to load, and also fit on the monitors of their viewers. Padraig has
done this, and hats off to him.

s.

I've been away while Spouse was building my new super duper pc but I agree
with you.

The first time I posted a picture here I was told, ever so gently, that it
would have been better for viewers if it had been smaller. That was quite
right and now I always make sure that any pictures I post to anyone are
easily loaded and viewed. It's a courtesy.

While loading a huge file our lives are ticking away, we should make full
use of every second.

Mary