Thanks for all your input, now I've just got to figure out the best way for it to pic a photo at random (from half a dozen or so), and present a simple jpeg if Flash is disabled/not installed.

Oh, and the other little problem I've got at the moment, is that when you point at the small pic on the left hand side of that page (actually not on the version that's uploaded at the moment), you should get a box appear with some explanatory text in it, like I did with this website: www.MoreThanArt.co.uk

However, the problem is that these boxes do appear, but they're underneath the big picture, and I can't seem to tell them to go on top. Tried the z-index, the order the elements are in, tried everything I could think of at midnight last night.

But as I say, not on the version uploaded at the mo.

Thanks again,
Dan

Thanks Gwyn and Chirpy.

The only problem I've noticed with Opera is that you always get (at least I do) the little navigation box in the top left corner of the image - the one that has a small version of the pic with a red box to show where you've zoomed into. I've disabled this option in the code, and IE doesn't show it but Opera does. Don't know if it's there in Firefox - Chirpy?

Dan

Well, although it may not be an issue with the script itself, if enough people have it disabled as a matter of course, then that's an issue because it's off-putting to receive an alert when you first visit a page.

I'd have an alternative (simple image) for when the user doesn't have flash installed/enabled. I'll have to get that sorted to see if you'd just see that, or whether you'd still get the alert. Hope you don't mind being a guinea pig.

Cheers,
Dan

I've uploaded another pic and integrated it into a better webpage, none of the links work though.

Chirpy, when you say you 'allowed it to work', was this a "this page is trying to run an application" type of thing, or a "click here to activate this control"?

I'll have to do some proper testing and surveying before I definitely decide to use this, but would still greatly appreciate everyone's comments.

www.DanielBridge.co.uk/zoomify

Many thanks,
Dan

Thanks all for your comments. Chirpy, thanks for raising those points (including "once I'd allowed it...". It's actually a flash application, but I don't find it anywhere near as annoying as a whole flash site.

I quite like the idea of using it as an occasional item, and also like that it allows someone to view details in a photo without giving them access (easily) to a hi-res file.

And it is a gimmick. But I do like the way that it's reasonably fast and rather than just being a pointless animation, it's got an actual use.

I'm very tempted to have it on my homepage, with a random image selector, but my concern is the "once I'd allowed it to run", which is different to not having Flash installed.

Oh well, I'll have a think. Any more comments welcome.

Thanks,
Dan

Hi all,

Wasn't sure whether to post this here or in one of the other topic areas, but there a photo at the end of this link so I thought I'd put it here.

I'm thinking of revamping my website a little, and happened to come across this image viewer thingy called 'Zoomify', which allows you to zoom in on photos on the web (quite like Google Earth). I wouldn't want to use it with all my photos as the initial upload for each pic is quite high (around 1Mb for this one), but for odd ones I quite like the idea.

Just wish I'd chosen a different one to try it with now though. You can modify the template for the page the image loads in, how big the image area is etc, so it would integrate fine with your own website. Best thing of all, is that it's free.

My example here: http://www.danielbridge.co.uk/zoomify/Template.htm

I'd be very grateful if you could let me know if you have any problems with it, whether it's too slow etc.

Cheers,
Dan

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for renewable energy sources, but my immediate is thought that you'd need an awful lot of those turbines to produce anything like the power of the power station, so that's something that you'll need to address - not only the visual pollution of hundreds of turbines around the place, but also the noise pollution. The odd couple dotted around make a noticable noise when you're nearby, if everyone had one in their back garden, I would imagine there would be a constant drone.

Unfortunately these are some of the problems facing proponents of renewable sources at the moment.

Dan

Canon do a 'try before you buy' service where you upload a photo, they print it with your chosen printer(s) and then send the prints to you.

Dan

I chose a Canon 4200, as the print quality and speed was good, but also, as Beakynet says, you get 2 paper trays. I use mine differently to Beaky, in that I have the plain paper in the bottom tray, and just top that up now and again, and use the rear loader for photopaper.

I prefer this method as it's a fairly straight path from back to front, whereas the other tray, involves a 180 degree turn for the paper. This is what puts me off the HP printers too. I print to greetings card blanks quit a bit, and for these I think the straight path is much better.

Don't know of any black and white inks for Canon printers though.

Oh, it also does CD/DVD printing. Cost about £60.

Dan

My japanese isn't too good , but on this page - http://kakaku.com/camera/ - halfway down, there's a K10D, with a gold crown and a '1st' next to it, followed by a Canon 5D (Silver crown, 2nd), then a 40D (bronze, 3rd). Does this mean bestselling, or best user feedback? Obviously good either way, but just curious.

Dan

P.S. I could probably stump up an extra £50 if we wanted to make a weekend of it.