All Forum Comments
Comment by Algernon posted on Silent Members at 08/11/2014 - 18:32
If I right click in Fitefox and choose 'Image Fit' on a tall image it doesn't take into account the banner at the top of the screen and the top part of the image is hidden.
Comment by Algernon posted on New Pentax User Redesign Screenshots at 07/11/2014 - 11:27
No problems with Firefox 33.0.2 and the back button, but I wouldn't be surprised if Firefox had messed that up, because they like to fix things that don't need fixing.
I've installed the Classic Theme Restorer Add-On which re-fixes a lot of the fixes that shouldn't have been fixed in the first place
--
I've installed the Classic Theme Restorer Add-On which re-fixes a lot of the fixes that shouldn't have been fixed in the first place
--
Comment by Algernon posted on New look forum at 07/11/2014 - 11:19
All really great shots. Click to see larger.
Comment by Algernon posted on New to K-3, low light test at 07/11/2014 - 11:14
I think David mentioned that 1200 was the average viewer size for this site.
I've just looked at the US_site_link and at 1024 wide (on my monitor)
they still don't reduce 1200 wide jpegs (I can use a scroll bar).
Also note they have used black for the body text and white background
for text and photos. Never heard anyone complain
So this new design is a big step backwards
--
I've just looked at the US_site_link and at 1024 wide (on my monitor)
they still don't reduce 1200 wide jpegs (I can use a scroll bar).
Also note they have used black for the body text and white background
for text and photos. Never heard anyone complain
So this new design is a big step backwards
--
Comment by Algernon posted on New Pentax User Redesign Screenshots at 07/11/2014 - 10:56
Oh Dear! Even at 1280x1024 photos that used to display 800w are being
scaled down to 594 wide. At 1024x768 they and the text goes under whatever's
on the right. (Firefox 33.0.2)
Simon seems to have wasted his time posting the Siverstone pics
Same with m42geo's, although they are 2048 wide originally.
--
scaled down to 594 wide. At 1024x768 they and the text goes under whatever's
on the right. (Firefox 33.0.2)
Simon seems to have wasted his time posting the Siverstone pics
Same with m42geo's, although they are 2048 wide originally.
--
Comment by Algernon posted on New Pentax User Redesign Screenshots at 07/11/2014 - 09:17
I think the grey text is the main problem. Not the white background.
Body text should be black. The footers can be grey.
I gave up trying to read richandfleur's post above halfway through, my eye's
started to ache.
This site although not a forum has a similar layout and colour and the white
isn't a problem.....
http://www.totalrl.com/category/super-league/
--
Body text should be black. The footers can be grey.
I gave up trying to read richandfleur's post above halfway through, my eye's
started to ache.
This site although not a forum has a similar layout and colour and the white
isn't a problem.....
http://www.totalrl.com/category/super-league/
--
Comment by Algernon posted on New Pentax User Redesign Screenshots at 07/11/2014 - 08:37
davidstorm wrote:
I'm going against the flow here and I think it looks just fine. I think Algi should update his monitor - 1024 * 768 on a 19" monitor is a bit 'yesteryear' to say the least!! Full HD monitors are pretty cheap nowadays and on my 1920 * 1080 laptop screen the new layout works a treat. For me it is much more modern, cleaner and easier to read, I have no issues with the white space.
However, the biggest gain I have noticed is not on the Forum, but in the Gallery. Finally, my images are looking more akin to how they look in their original state on my PC!! In particular the 'larger' view on the gallery is great, the images have greater clarity, more punch, contrast and detail than they did previously. This has puzzled me a little as it implies that the uploaded images must be stored somewhere in their uncompressed form as otherwise surely they would look the same as they did on the old Gallery? Has anyone else noticed this quality improvement in the Gallery images?
I would be interested in what the site administrators / mods can advise on this point, but whatever the reason it is a most welcome change.
Regards
David
Why would you want a Full HD monitor to look at 800 wide photos If you could buy one an 800x800 would be perfect..... every photo would fill the screen not just a quarter of it. 1024x768 is a compromise. A lot of sites allow 1000w so that just about fills the screen. This PC is only used for the internet and I like to sit comfortably in a rocking arm chair 1000mm away with a trackball mouse and small wireless keyboard. I think the native resolution is 1280w but it's one of very few monitors that work well at other resolutions. I bought the monitor about 6 years ago because I liked the look of it and the adjustments available. This one......I'm going against the flow here and I think it looks just fine. I think Algi should update his monitor - 1024 * 768 on a 19" monitor is a bit 'yesteryear' to say the least!! Full HD monitors are pretty cheap nowadays and on my 1920 * 1080 laptop screen the new layout works a treat. For me it is much more modern, cleaner and easier to read, I have no issues with the white space.
However, the biggest gain I have noticed is not on the Forum, but in the Gallery. Finally, my images are looking more akin to how they look in their original state on my PC!! In particular the 'larger' view on the gallery is great, the images have greater clarity, more punch, contrast and detail than they did previously. This has puzzled me a little as it implies that the uploaded images must be stored somewhere in their uncompressed form as otherwise surely they would look the same as they did on the old Gallery? Has anyone else noticed this quality improvement in the Gallery images?
I would be interested in what the site administrators / mods can advise on this point, but whatever the reason it is a most welcome change.
Regards
David
http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews/samsung_971p.htm
"This has puzzled me a little as it implies that the uploaded images must be stored somewhere in their uncompressed form"
How long have you been using this site Images only get reduced in size when they reach your PC ...... down from whatever to 800 wide or high.
--
Comment by Algernon posted on New look forum at 06/11/2014 - 10:44
Visually it's a mess
Have a look at dinneenp's 4:14pm reply on..
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/flash-for-wedding-photography-51167/p-1
The type's allover the place and painful to look at. I'm using 1024x768 on a 19" 4:3 monitor.
--
Have a look at dinneenp's 4:14pm reply on..
https://www.pentaxuser.com/forum/topic/flash-for-wedding-photography-51167/p-1
The type's allover the place and painful to look at. I'm using 1024x768 on a 19" 4:3 monitor.
--
Comment by Algernon posted on New look forum at 05/11/2014 - 16:27
Algernon wrote:
I've got about 4 Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7's mostly on bodies.
All of them are in excellent condition and if you want one
I could sort out a good one for £39 posted. Both caps included
but they won't be Pentax originals.
--
The way I've worded that could be confusing The £39 is just for a lens not lensI've got about 4 Pentax-A 50mm f/1.7's mostly on bodies.
All of them are in excellent condition and if you want one
I could sort out a good one for £39 posted. Both caps included
but they won't be Pentax originals.
--
and body. I ran out of body caps so I put lenses on until I get some. One of the bodies
is an MZ-S
--
Comment by Algernon posted on Difference between m and a at 05/11/2014 - 14:52
text on here much longer.
--