At 11/10/2020 04:45 PM, Moose wrote:
>Out the kitchen window, I saw a still life*, provided by Mother Nature, a
>spider web with stuff caught in it. I took it's picture, and like the result a
>lot.
>
>As screen background, sized for my 24" monitor, 1920x1200 it's arresting, aÂ
>large, lighted image in a small, dim room.
>
>As an ~1200x900 image on Google Photos, it's nice, but not nearly AS nice.
><https://photos.app.goo.gl/zVbaF5L8cVvNXq6v5>
>
>If you can view a ~1900x1200 image full screen, here it is.
><http://galleries.moosemystic.net/MooseFoto/index.php?gallery=Miscellaneous/Images&image=_A__4726_SCR.jpg>
>
>Google Photos, Flickr and SmugMug mess with large images, with not so good
>downsampling.
>
>AKAG just posts large images, and lets the viewer deal with it. Or does he?
>Here's what Win7 says about one of his recent images on Firefox: "1,920px Ã?
>1,440px (scaled to 1,622px Ã? 1,217px)" If I right click and choose "View
>Image" , I get the full resolution version. Switching between the two, it
>seems that it loses something in translation.
>
>What sizes should I be posting? A good site for large, non-messed with images?
>
>Befuddled Sizes Moose
>
>
>* Temporarily still, as the next wind, from a different directions changed it
>a lot, not for the better.
My kind of picture.
Nature is an artist. One of the reasons I rarely plan what I will shoot, and
prefer to let the nature reveal itself.
I was hoping you had the answer on posting size...
WayneS
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
