On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 10:42:20 -0500, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
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! *****
***********************************


The site offers the ability to reduce photo size several different ways
and, of course, I can do it myself before I upload them.

Looks like 512kb is the max size without paying, and 1mb with payment. If I
have to reduce the size, I may as well use abpso. There I can go up to
1.5mb and it's free!
--
John H

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

Looks like 512kb is the max size without paying, and 1mb with payment. If
I
have to reduce the size, I may as well use abpso. There I can go up to
1.5mb and it's free!
--

But keep in mind that anything posted to abpso is temporary. My news server
is showing the oldest post as 1/4. Anything posted to a photo site is
permanent until you delete it.

BTW, when I'm at the office, I don't have access to my (Cox's) news server,
so I'm forced to access Usenet via Google Groups. Abpso isn't available on
Google Groups. Any idea how abpso can be accessed from the web?

On Wed, 25 Jan 2006 19:22:35 -0700, "RG" wrote:


Looks like 512kb is the max size without paying, and 1mb with payment. If
I
have to reduce the size, I may as well use abpso. There I can go up to
1.5mb and it's free!
--

But keep in mind that anything posted to abpso is temporary. My news server
is showing the oldest post as 1/4. Anything posted to a photo site is
permanent until you delete it.

BTW, when I'm at the office, I don't have access to my (Cox's) news server,
so I'm forced to access Usenet via Google Groups. Abpso isn't available on
Google Groups. Any idea how abpso can be accessed from the web?


My server still carries posts back to 12/27, which was about the time Wayne
(I think) discovered the empty site. There had been nothing on it before
then that I could find, either text or binary.

As to the access problem, I've no idea. There's lots of smart folks here.
Maybe they'll help.
--
John H

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