All Forum Comments
Comment by George Lazarette posted on 50th Anniversary DSLR at 11/06/2007 - 17:38
Quote:
All other rates are grayed out at that resolution, so no choice there.
I sometimes go back to 1024x768 at 75.
I select the resolution that makes almost all websites readable and has a refresh rate of at least 85.All other rates are grayed out at that resolution, so no choice there.
I sometimes go back to 1024x768 at 75.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on What Screen resolution are you using? at 09/06/2007 - 22:48
Quote:
1280x1024 at 60 on a 17.4" TFT LCD
That would hurt my eyes. The recommended minimum refresh rate, if I recall correctly, is 75.1280x1024 at 60 on a 17.4" TFT LCD
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on What Screen resolution are you using? at 09/06/2007 - 21:38
Quote:
I can't understand most of this : how do I FIND the screeen resolution ? I have a 'Time' computer donated by my sister-in-law. It has quite a large screen and is the regular TV Set shape.
With the cursor hovering over a bit of blank screen, click the right mouse button.I can't understand most of this : how do I FIND the screeen resolution ? I have a 'Time' computer donated by my sister-in-law. It has quite a large screen and is the regular TV Set shape.
A box will appear, with the word "Properties" at the bottom.
Click on "Properties".
Another box will appear with a list of options in a row at the top. Click on "Settings", and you will see your screen resolution.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on What Screen resolution are you using? at 07/06/2007 - 17:27
Quote:
I'm getting very tired of people reading an awful lot more into what I write than is there, and then bandying accusations around based on what they've read into it, rather than what I actually say.
Why might this be? I'm getting very tired of people reading an awful lot more into what I write than is there, and then bandying accusations around based on what they've read into it, rather than what I actually say.
Quote:
...........I am a little surprised that as many as 40% are still using resolutions less than 1280. I think that is certainly a big enough minority for people here to post pictures that will display Ok down to 1024, and I will in future.
Fair enough............I am a little surprised that as many as 40% are still using resolutions less than 1280. I think that is certainly a big enough minority for people here to post pictures that will display Ok down to 1024, and I will in future.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pictures Of A New Model (girl) at 07/06/2007 - 17:14
Quote:
Do you really think the majority are at less than 1280 x 1024? You may be right, of course, but I'd be surprised.
Which, including the large left hand margin (which I hadn't at all forgotten), is perfect for 1280 x 1024 monitors, as I say.
I take issue, Chris, with your arrogant assumption that what is perfect for you is good enough for everybody. I find it quite surprising that you should disagree with Peter Elgar when he complained about the size of the pictures. Quite clearly, they are too big for him, and they are too big for the 40% of people who, for one reason or another, don't use a resolution of 1280. Who on earth are you to tell him what screen to buy, or what resolution to use?George Lazarette wrote:
Chris, that is nonsense, for two reasons.
First: 1280 x 1024 may be the most common size sold at the moment, but I very much doubt that it is the most common in use.
Of the people reading this forum?Chris, that is nonsense, for two reasons.
First: 1280 x 1024 may be the most common size sold at the moment, but I very much doubt that it is the most common in use.
Do you really think the majority are at less than 1280 x 1024? You may be right, of course, but I'd be surprised.
Quote:
Second, the design of the web page allows much less room than 1280. You are forgetting the large margin on the left.
If you'd taken the trouble to think just for a moment before telling me I'm talking nonsense, you'd notice that Kemal's landscape shots are actually 1024 pixels wide.Second, the design of the web page allows much less room than 1280. You are forgetting the large margin on the left.
Which, including the large left hand margin (which I hadn't at all forgotten), is perfect for 1280 x 1024 monitors, as I say.
My screen has a max res of 1600, but I use 1182 because I find the small text on some websites difficult to read. I am not alone.
Matt sugggested a max size of 600 in both directions, which seems an excellent idea. If you want to post larger pictures, the best way is to link to them.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pictures Of A New Model (girl) at 07/06/2007 - 16:18
You're quite right, I didn't measure the pictures, I simply took your statement at face value:
"The pictures were perfect for the most common screen size these days, namely 1280 x 1024, and because the landscape ones were the same width..."
To me that says that the landscape pictures were 1280 wide. But perhaps what you wrote wasn't what you meant.
G
"The pictures were perfect for the most common screen size these days, namely 1280 x 1024, and because the landscape ones were the same width..."
To me that says that the landscape pictures were 1280 wide. But perhaps what you wrote wasn't what you meant.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pictures Of A New Model (girl) at 06/06/2007 - 11:32
Quote:
The pictures were perfect for the most common screen size these days, namely 1280 x 1024, and because the landscape ones were the same width, they were nicely aligned too, which I certainly appreciate.
Chris, that is nonsense, for two reasons. Peter Elgar wrote:
I just wish you had made these uploads SMALLER as I had to move the screen around to look at them ( well at least the 'landscape format' ones were far too wide )
This is one criticism I wouldn't agree with.I just wish you had made these uploads SMALLER as I had to move the screen around to look at them ( well at least the 'landscape format' ones were far too wide )
The pictures were perfect for the most common screen size these days, namely 1280 x 1024, and because the landscape ones were the same width, they were nicely aligned too, which I certainly appreciate.
First: 1280 x 1024 may be the most common size sold at the moment, but I very much doubt that it is the most common in use.
Second, the design of the web page allows much less room than 1280. You are forgetting the large margin on the left.
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pictures Of A New Model (girl) at 06/06/2007 - 11:19
If shooting contra-jour, I would suggest spot-metering on the model's cheek.
G
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on Pictures Of A New Model (girl) at 05/06/2007 - 11:14
Quote:
Can anyone recommend a uk processing company for B+W film/prints.
Also what are your experiences having the film scanned onto cd for further digital manipulation yourself.
I have always thought that b&w printing should be done by the photographer.Can anyone recommend a uk processing company for B+W film/prints.
Also what are your experiences having the film scanned onto cd for further digital manipulation yourself.
However, HCB got somebody to do his for him, so who am I to argue?
G
Comment by George Lazarette posted on B+W processing at 05/06/2007 - 11:17
PS. Anyone else think K10 sounds better than K10D?
G