For the camera buffs.
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever
got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many
were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at
maximum size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly
flash. That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate,
but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the
internal flash would. Less so using an SB-600/800.
PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still
trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them
show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is
the only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
JohnH or anyone else,
I tried to join them in Thunderbird, but could not figure out how.

I had to open them in OE. Does TB have the ability to join multi
part attachments?


View.
Display Attachments Inline.
Thanks.


I really don't "get" posting photos in usenet, when it is so much easier
to simply upload what you want to a photo website, and include a URL
when you want to reference that photo, as in:

http://tinyurl.com/cdayt
The picture had a soft focus to them, but who the hell cares. ;)


--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

For the camera buffs.
 

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever
got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many
were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at
maximum size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly
flash. That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate,
but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the
internal flash would. Less so using an SB-600/800.
PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still
trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them
show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is
the only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
JohnH or anyone else,
I tried to join them in Thunderbird, but could not figure out how.

I had to open them in OE. Does TB have the ability to join multi
part attachments?


View.
Display Attachments Inline.
Thanks.


I really don't "get" posting photos in usenet, when it is so much easier
to simply upload what you want to a photo website, and include a URL
when you want to reference that photo, as in:

http://tinyurl.com/cdayt
PS - The Inline Viewing still did not combine the Airline Picture.

I don't think Thunderbird is designed for binaries. Since I rarely
combine binaries it is no big deal.

--
Reggie
************************************************** *************
That's my story and I am sticking to it.

************************************************** *************

For the camera buffs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...

I really don't "get" posting photos in usenet, when it is so much easier
to simply upload what you want to a photo website, and include a URL when
you want to reference that photo, as in:

http://tinyurl.com/cdayt


Hank?

Eisboch

For the camera buffs.
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:24:55 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at
maximum size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly
flash. That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate, but
I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the
internal flash would. Less so using an SB-600/800.
PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them
show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is the
only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
JohnH or anyone else,
I tried to join them in Thunderbird, but could not figure out how.

I had to open them in OE. Does TB have the ability to join multi part
attachments?


View.
Display Attachments Inline.
Thanks.


I really don't "get" posting photos in usenet, when it is so much easier
to simply upload what you want to a photo website, and include a URL
when you want to reference that photo, as in:

http://tinyurl.com/cdayt

Easier, and more control over size. Try posting your owl picture in a web
page, and then compare it to your post in abpso. I'll bet you'll see a big
difference.
--
John H

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

For the camera buffs.
 

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 09:31:10 -0500, Reggie Smithers
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
Harry Krause wrote:
Reggie Smithers wrote:
JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 24 Jan 2006 22:58:16 -0700, "RG" wrote:

To tell the truth, I was estimating. But, I don't think I ever
got 500
shots out of the D70. I think a couple hundred was the most. Many
were
indoors, with the flash, and on the highest jpg resolution at
maximum size.
I'm guessing about 200 from the D200, max res, max size, mostly
flash. That
was after the first charge. I'll try to get a better estimate,
but I think
two 512MB cards is about what I got.
--
Well, flash would make a huge difference. At least using the
internal flash would. Less so using an SB-600/800.
PS. A few more pics in abpso. Join the files first. I'm still
trying to
figure out how to post several pictures at one time and have them
show up
as individual complete headers. I guess posting one at a time is
the only
way.
--
John H

******Have a spectacular day!******
JohnH or anyone else,
I tried to join them in Thunderbird, but could not figure out how.

I had to open them in OE. Does TB have the ability to join multi
part attachments?


View.
Display Attachments Inline.
Thanks.


I really don't "get" posting photos in usenet, when it is so much easier
to simply upload what you want to a photo website, and include a URL
when you want to reference that photo, as in:

http://tinyurl.com/cdayt
PS - The Inline Viewing still did not combine the Airline Picture.

I don't think Thunderbird is designed for binaries. Since I rarely
combine binaries it is no big deal.

I'll repost the airplane picture by itself. It's kinda cute.
--
John H

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

For the camera buffs.
 

"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
Eisboch wrote:
"Harry Krause" wrote in message
...
I really don't "get" posting photos in usenet, when it is so much easier
to simply upload what you want to a photo website, and include a URL
when you want to reference that photo, as in:

http://tinyurl.com/cdayt


Hank?

Eisboch


One of the nicknames I've been burdened with during my lifetime. There's
worse. The assistant city editor at the Kansas City Star called me "Moose"
because he was a reconstituted sports editor and of course remembered Ed
"Moose" Krause, the ND bb player. But he outdid himself with a redheaded
Irish gal at the paper, whom he called "Scarlett O'Speece."

Nothing wrong with Hank. Seemed strange at first, as we all know you as
Harry.

With the given name of "Richard" and it's most common associated nickname of
"Dick", I am all too familiar with the burden of nicknames. Never really
bothered me though. It's hard to insult me as I have heard them all.

Eisboch

For the camera buffs.
 

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?

For the camera buffs.
 

"RG" wrote in message news:9gMBf.1431$MJ.1094@fed1read07...

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?


Thanks for the "lovely" winter photo comment, but one small correction.
That ain't a house. That's Mrs.E's horse barn. The picture was taken from
the house.

When we bought this place I drooled over the barn and had all kinds of plans
for custom woodworking workshops and places to keep my "stuff". Fat chance.
Two 1000 lb pets moved in and I am not allowed in there.

Eisboch

For the camera buffs.
 

Thanks for the "lovely" winter photo comment, but one small correction.
That ain't a house. That's Mrs.E's horse barn. The picture was taken
from the house.


I should have known. Silly me. Obviously the only way for you to save
face in this situation is to build a massive state of the art structure to
house your vehicles and suitable environment for your shop projects. Enough
power tools to cause a brownout. And pneumatic lifts, of course. Wouldn't
want to flat spot the tires on the M5, would we?

For the camera buffs.
 

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! *****
***********************************