A newbie and a primitive camera

EricLuk

unread,

May 11, 2003, 9:10:31 AM5/11/03

to

some photos of campus~

http://eric.pigeond.net/hp/main.php?page=images/2003-04-30_CU01/page_01.htm

DigitalCameraBasics

unread,

May 11, 2003, 11:02:04 AM5/11/03

to

Well, first, you do not mention what camera was used for these photos.
Viewers to your site might want to know.

Second, you show all of your images in thumbnail form, but when the viewer
clicks on it, a HUGE full-sized version pops up. You should have resized
the second version to a screen size for proper viewing.

Keep working on it, it has promise.

Greg
---------

"EricLuk" <thl...@cse.cuhk.edu.hk> wrote in message
news:1052658631.373816@eng-ser4...

JK

unread,

May 11, 2003, 12:24:45 PM5/11/03

to

DigitalCameraBasics wrote:
> Well, first, you do not mention what camera was used for these photos.
> Viewers to your site might want to know.
>
> Second, you show all of your images in thumbnail form, but when the viewer
> clicks on it, a HUGE full-sized version pops up. You should have resized
> the second version to a screen size for proper viewing.

Screen sizes vary tremendously from one user to the next. Some consider
800x600 as screen sized, while others consider 1600x1200 or even larger
as screen sized. I hate it when people feel that images on websites
should be 800x 600 or smaller. Some of his images are interesting.
Imagine what he could do with a much better camera.

Frank ess

unread,

May 11, 2003, 12:41:07 PM5/11/03

to

EricLuk wrote:
>> some photos of campus~
>>
>>
http://eric.pigeond.net/hp/main.php?page=images/2003-04-30_CU01/page_01.htm

Pretty nice.

Of course the interface is fly-swatting with an AK47.

DigitalCameraBasics

unread,

May 11, 2003, 10:19:05 PM5/11/03

to

Actually, a few years ago when 14-15" monitors were standard, then the
average computer user used 640 to 800 for their screen resolutions. Today,
many people use 17-19" monitors, where 1024 is the "standard" for that size.
Some of course do use larger monitors and/or set the resolution up to 1600,
but this is not the norm - no one I know uses 1600 except for one graphic's
professional I know. Our office, my friends, neighbors, and myself, all use
1024. At 1024, the images displayed on his site are too large.

Greg

"JK" <JK9...@netscape.net> wrote in message
news:3EBE794D...@netscape.net...

Tony Whitaker

unread,

May 12, 2003, 7:29:09 AM5/12/03

to

"DigitalCameraBasics" <digita...@NOSPAM.mindspring.com> wrote in
news:b9lofo$g0c$1...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net:

> Second, you show all of your images in thumbnail form, but when the
> viewer clicks on it, a HUGE full-sized version pops up. You should
> have resized the second version to a screen size for proper viewing.

I actually prefer to see the full-resolution version, but a warning about
what's going to pop up would be nice.

Also, it does say in very small type at the bottom of the window of
pictures "by Pentax 230" (not really all that primitive).

Most of the pictures are very nice and interesting - except the flower
pictures. Nooooooooooo! The world doesn't need many more flower pictures.

I like the waterfall picture. That's the kind of photography I like to do.