My pond pictures appear to be back up, if anyone is interested.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/o/rockcat/...%20Picture.htm

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/o/rockcat/...0Birthday%20Pi
cture.htm

Wow! They were worth waiting for!


kathy :-)
A HREF="http://www.onceuponapond.com/"Once upon a pond/A

"Ka30P" wrote in message
...

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/o/rockcat/...0Birthday%20Pi
cture.htm

Wow! They were worth waiting for!


kathy :-)
A HREF="http://www.onceuponapond.com/"Once upon a pond/A

Thanks.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 05:54:37 -0400, " George"
wrote:

My pond pictures appear to be back up, if anyone is interested.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/o/rockcat/...%20Picture.htm


I got "Bandwidth exceeded" from your wbehost.

Maybe the pics are very large files and you could reduce them, thus
reducing the bandwidth needed to see them?

HTH
Mike
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."

"Mike Patterson" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 05:54:37 -0400, " George"
wrote:

My pond pictures appear to be back up, if anyone is interested.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/o/rockcat/...%20Picture.htm


I got "Bandwidth exceeded" from your wbehost.

Maybe the pics are very large files and you could reduce them, thus
reducing the bandwidth needed to see them?

HTH
Mike
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."


Sorry you are having problems. I just tried it, and it worked for me. I had
problems with the page last night, got the same thing. The pictures aren't very
large. In fact, that entire page is less than 3 MB. I may have to talk to my
ISP to see what the problem is.

On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 19:53:00 -0400, " George"
wrote:


"Mike Patterson" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 05:54:37 -0400, " George"
wrote:

My pond pictures appear to be back up, if anyone is interested.

http://bellsouthpwp.net/r/o/rockcat/...%20Picture.htm


I got "Bandwidth exceeded" from your wbehost.

Maybe the pics are very large files and you could reduce them, thus
reducing the bandwidth needed to see them?

HTH
Mike
Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."


Sorry you are having problems. I just tried it, and it worked for me. I had
problems with the page last night, got the same thing. The pictures aren't very
large. In fact, that entire page is less than 3 MB. I may have to talk to my
ISP to see what the problem is.


very odd, I just tried it again, same thing

Mike Patterson
Please remove the spamtrap to email me.
"I always wanted to be somebody. I should have been more specific..."

" George" wrote in message
news snip
Sorry you are having problems. I just tried it, and it worked for me. I
had
problems with the page last night, got the same thing. The pictures
aren't very
large. In fact, that entire page is less than 3 MB. I may have to talk
to my
ISP to see what the problem is.
snip

I hate it when techno geeks post techno babble on a non-techno babble group,
but I am techno geek and as such can not control my self. Saying "In fact,
that entire page is less than 3 MB" is like saying "King Kong is just a
monkey"

3MB IS HUGE!!!!

My rules of thumb for photos on the web...

1. Use JPG with at 15-25 compression. You may be able to go further without
noticeable loss
2. My thumbs are all 200 pix wide, and average less then 12k
3. My main photos are limited t0 700 pix wide and average less then 150k.

Check out my photo album for an example of what I am talking about,
http://www.darofamily.com/jeff/topic...Photo%20Album.

If you have a page that is 3MB, you have either way too much content on one
page, or your pictures are way to big for the web.

BV.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
news snip
Sorry you are having problems. I just tried it, and it worked for me. I
had
problems with the page last night, got the same thing. The pictures
aren't very
large. In fact, that entire page is less than 3 MB. I may have to talk
to my
ISP to see what the problem is.
snip

I hate it when techno geeks post techno babble on a non-techno babble group,
but I am techno geek and as such can not control my self. Saying "In fact,
that entire page is less than 3 MB" is like saying "King Kong is just a
monkey"

3MB IS HUGE!!!!

In fact, it is less than 2 MB. And that isn't huge for me, since I have DSL.
But I realize that many don't, which is why the pictures are all less than 200
KB.

My rules of thumb for photos on the web...

1. Use JPG with at 15-25 compression. You may be able to go further without
noticeable loss

Done that.

2. My thumbs are all 200 pix wide, and average less then 12k
3. My main photos are limited t0 700 pix wide and average less then 150k.

Check out my photo album for an example of what I am talking about,
http://www.darofamily.com/jeff/topic...Photo%20Album.

If you have a page that is 3MB, you have either way too much content on one
page, or your pictures are way to big for the web.

BV.


Not.

I both crop and aim for pictures that are around 50K. I think the newer digitals are
taking much, much finer details (and larger mb) as a result. while that is important
for printing and for blowing up a pic, it is overkill for the net. Ingrid

" George" wrote:
In fact, it is less than 2 MB. And that isn't huge for me, since I have DSL.
But I realize that many don't, which is why the pictures are all less than 200
KB.


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

" George" wrote in message
...
snip
In fact, it is less than 2 MB. And that isn't huge for me, since I have
DSL.
But I realize that many don't, which is why the pictures are all less than
200
KB.

I guess this is a potato/potahto thing. To me web pages should not be
weighed in MB's.

snip
If you have a page that is 3MB, you have either way too much content on
one
page, or your pictures are way to big for the web.

Not.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, eh? LOL. I too have DSL. It's not
nearly as fast my cable modem, but it is faster then the dial-ups many of my
friends and family use, so I try to code to that denominator.

BV.
Potato(e)

wrote in message
...
I both crop and aim for pictures that are around 50K. I think the newer
digitals are
taking much, much finer details (and larger mb) as a result. while that
is important
for printing and for blowing up a pic, it is overkill for the net. Ingrid
SNIP

I concur, which is why my full sized pix are limited to 700pix wide. 800x600
seems to be as close to a typical resolution, so for those users 700 fits
nicely, and is not huge in file size.

BV.

"Benign Vanilla" wrote in message
...

" George" wrote in message
...
snip
In fact, it is less than 2 MB. And that isn't huge for me, since I have
DSL.
But I realize that many don't, which is why the pictures are all less than
200
KB.

I guess this is a potato/potahto thing. To me web pages should not be
weighed in MB's.

snip
If you have a page that is 3MB, you have either way too much content on
one
page, or your pictures are way to big for the web.

Not.


I guess we'll have to agree to disagree, eh? LOL. I too have DSL. It's not
nearly as fast my cable modem, but it is faster then the dial-ups many of my
friends and family use, so I try to code to that denominator.

BV.
Potato(e)


I just upgraded my dsl to 3.0 Mb/sec, which is I guess as fast as dsl can get.
I also reduced the resolution on the pictures so that the file sizes are smaller
and load faster. Unfortunately, in doing this, I apparently exceeded my
bandwidth AGAIN. I'll have to talk to my ISP because I have another web site
(an inactive one) that is much larger than this one page, and it never exceeded
my bandwidth, especially while editing a web page. It was my understanding that
with the faster dsl service, my personal web page bandwidth would also go up.
Perhaps they haven't changed that yet.

That's only ten people.

Joe

On 6/3/04 4:53 PM, "George" wrote:

In fact, that entire page is less than 3 MB. I may have to talk to my
ISP to see what the problem is.



-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----