arnabdas Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
anupam Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 .<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
klix Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 2-legged kind<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prof-K Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 .,.<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luis triguez Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Nikkor 135. Film Kodak Recording 2475 rated at ISO 1600. Developed with DK-50 (1:1)<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 <center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3931517-sm.jpg"></center> <p> Head, Shoulders and Some.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
imagestreet Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Isn't there a gallery for showing photographs? What's the purpose of posting these pictures in a gear forum? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Check out what this forum is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Great, we can't have pix larger than 511 but the first two images total 425K! I wish the powers that be would start looking at the real culprit and not the myth that that larger pixel dimensions mean longer dial up times. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Come on, Eric. Couple of image posts that happens once in a blue moon. Consider that I compensated atleast for one with my thumnail. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Even now?<p><center><img src="http://d6d2h4gfvy8t8.cloudfront.net/3935727-sm.jpg"></center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Eric, photo.net's software checks the horizontal pixel dimention of attached images, but somehow it does not check the size of the files (in terms of number of bytes) or vertical pixel count. And more and more have broadband access in these days, so the suggested size limit may be adjusted accordingly over time. As long as it is not too excessive, we don't bother. If we pick on every image that is 1 pixel too wide or 1 byte too large, I am sure we would have gotten a lot of complaints also. We are in a no win situation; I hope you understand that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 don't be smart... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EricM Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I was talking to my man Vivek up there, Shun. "No win situation" is a cop out. 511 is too small for todays standards and the justification we still hear is the size in k's for people on dial up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 I am smart. I can turn a landscape capture into a portrait image to circumvent the 511 rule. Ooops, did I give out too much! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShunCheung Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Eric, 511 pixels is photo.net's site-wide standard. I agree that it is on the small side nowadays. Again, technology is changing rapidly and those standards should be adjusted accordingly. Unfortunately, I do not control photo.net's software and I wouldn't have time to fix it anyway. If you have suggestions, please post them to the Feedback Forum. Whether your suggestions will be acted upon is another issue, though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 A few more:<P> <center> <img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds1/commonloon6.jpg"><P> common loon<P> <img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds1/ pelicanportrait2.jpg"><P> <img src="http://biology.ucr.edu/personal/MACphotos/birds1/pelicanface1.jpg"><P> brown pelicans<P> </center> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cappoldt Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Window light with some fill from an off-camera SB-800 into a reflector and an SB-600 in a softbox<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Sorry guys but for over 10 years I have been a sucker for bandwidth. I let the rest of the world feel the need for higher-speed internet access. If it were not for me, you'd never see the broadband. This page loads in a second on my laptop over wireless from the other room. Terrific images, guys. Mark -- the pelican pops right out of the screen. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bernard_frank Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Who said this was a "gear forum"? In fact, I think the Nikon forum lacks pictures posting. After all, the photos are what we're most interested in, right? Have a look at the Leica forum. They keep posting pics there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_chappell Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Thanks, Arnab. Your katydid portrait is superb (as usual for your insect shots). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calvin_lee Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Chris, another great shot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vivek iyer Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Leica forum rocks. I think, I saw Shakil Khan's fine portrait of his father there first. Olympus RC or RD (or Nikon?). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael R Freeman Posted February 4, 2006 Share Posted February 4, 2006 Little brother with his boys ...<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
arnabdas Posted February 4, 2006 Author Share Posted February 4, 2006 Christopher and Michael -- really nice shots! I wish I could shoot portraits but I always find flattering lighting very challenging to do. My hand mirror to make critters pop is useless there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now