On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:57:23 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

RG wrote:
My web photo site allows me to size photos about any way I want. Posted
photos should be kept small; they're for display on computer screens.

I think both have their place. Personally, since I have broadband, I prefer
to view a hi-res version of a photo. My viewer automatically scales the
photo to my screen size, but if I want to zoom in on an area, the extra
resolution can be a big help. As an example, I was viewing Eisboch's lovely
winter photo. I was curious about the vehicle parked on the side of the
house and tried zooming in tight on it to get a better look at it. The
image quickly became pixelated, and I wasn't able to glean much detail. Had
it been posted in its native resolution, I would have been able to get much
more detail when zooming. Also,I appreciate being able to look at the EXIF
data of a photo to get a feel for how it was shot.

On the other hand, a photo site is a great place to view someone's photo
albums or portfolio. Most sites allow a portfolio to broken down into sub
sections that can be organized by subject matter, or whatever the owner
chooses. I've been thinking about signing up on such a site, but don't have
a clue as to how to choose one over another. There's no shortage of them,
that's for sure. Any recommendations for a good site to join to post a
portfolio of photos?




I like photobucket. It's not expensive, there's real help if you need
it, and the owners are always adding more features. Max pix size for a
paid user is, I believe, 1024kb. That's enough for the snapshots I
choose to post. I don't "give away" my work stuff.

Harry, do you have to reduce the size, or does photobucket do it for you?
--
John H

***********************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
***********************************