knut_schwinzer Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Hi everybody, after my first post in this forum was rated "depressing" (Divorce from my M7), I now try to do good this time! Good light, cheers! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 Another try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nowhereman Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Trying to look at your picture, I saw that it's over 1MB! That takes a long time to appear on the monitor, even with a high-speed broadband connection. You should be reducing the picture to 72 ppi and have a file size of, say, 100KB. Nobody wants to wait for such a large picture to appear. --Mitch/Bangkok Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Following up on Mitch's comment, for your photo to appear in the thread (vs. as an attachment), it must be no more than 511 pixels wide and you must type something in the caption blank. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 Thanks Mitch, sorry, my fist try here... Digital universe for me an enigma, still shooting film for that only reason ;) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brambor Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 That's a nice pic Knut. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I agree that for aesthetic reasons (and forum rules) we should either keep to 511 pixels or link to our websites/gelleries. Also images so big they have to be scrolled are a bad idea and images that force the width of the thread text can be unsightly. But in this world of universal, cheap (or even free) DSL/ADSL where 1mbs is considered slow, what is the fundamental objection to images over 100K ? 56k dial-up (the original reason for the size limits) is a thing of the distant past. Even my cheapo home set-up is 2mbs and that is rapidly becoming stone-age. I know we are going to get someone here (like the little guy with the specs who pops up in Simpsons episodes!) who for some perverse reason wants to spend more on 56k dial-up than cheap unlimited broadband and there will probably be our one contributor from a mountain hut in Uzbekistan who cannot get broadband yet but surely we must move with the times a little? How many commercial sites (and this is a commercial site) restrict all their services just in order to support the few remaining slow speed dial up subscribers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 After visiting a Robert Frank Exhibition<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Sorry about that. I agree nice photo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Knut - Can't find the horse in your 2nd photo, but I'll keep looking -:) (Kidding of course. Glad you've got the posting going.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jonathan_reynolds Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 I like the first one too. The second would have been nicer had the focus been at infinity or middle distance, not on the trickle of schmuck in the foreground. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
knut_schwinzer Posted November 4, 2005 Author Share Posted November 4, 2005 Getting things going, I happily share another one without horse. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
terry_rory Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Put something in the Caption box before you submit it. Loved that last one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Uhooru Posted November 4, 2005 Share Posted November 4, 2005 Knut, these are interseting and pretty nicely done. I agree that the 2nd one would have been better with the focus back or a greater DOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinny_mcgee Posted November 5, 2005 Share Posted November 5, 2005 WOW!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_sage Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Nice images, Kurt. Were those all with the Nokton? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_sage Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 Sorry, Knut, that question was for you. I should have checked your name before posting. 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