okay, next question

[Bruce Marshall]

On Sunday 01 May 2005 04:02 pm, dep wrote:
> quoth Bruce Marshall:
> | A couple of comments:
> |
> | 1) I think you'd do well to limit the pic size to 1600x1200  (2M)  or
> | less. And probably 640x480 for sending with an email.
>
> well, sure, depending on the purpose. i like to shoot at full res and
> then scale 'em afterwards -- for instance, when i've shot weddings, i
> make a directory of the high-res files, then make a directory of 'em
> scaled to 800x600, and finally use a *severely* hacked album perl
> script to create thumbnails and the associated html. (actually, i
> typically break it up into several subdirectories -- before, during,
> after, for instance, and have an initial index.html which has a picture
> from each and a kind of cd-map; then i do an index.html for each of the
> subdirectories.) this allows people to put the cd into their machine
> and navigate and view at a resolution that is just fine on their
> screens -- but if they want to have nice prints made of some of the
> pictures, the high-res images, some of which run to 3.5 megs or so, are
> available. those produce excellent 8x10s and perfectly nice 11x14s. (in
> fact, the high-res images produce far better 4x6s than does even a
> 1600x1200 image.)
>
> | Most people don't have screens larger than 1024x768 and the larger
> | sizes make it tough for them to view.  (just my $.02 from experience)
>
> that's certainly true -- depends on what they intend to do with it. but
> for a "hey, look at this" kind of thing, you're entirely right imho.
>
> | 2) For emails, use a lower jpg compression to make the pics around
> | 40-60K in size.
>
> sure. i typically really mash 'em and also email 640x480s.
>
> | 3) I have a 4M camera but have never taken the max resolution with
> | it.  Just don't see the need since I'm not planning on making huge
> | prints of any of them.
>
> i never know when i'm going to want a bigger print, and often the best
> pictures are the ones that need to be taken *right now,* so i leave it
> on high-res. i can always thunk it down later.
>
> | 4) You might consider finding a web site where you can post pictures
> | for people to look at.  Send once, view many.
>
> typically, i'm not doing this for oodles of people. more often, i'm
> doing 50 pictures for one person.
>
> | 5) If you're on a mountain somewhere, have you looking into the
> | possibility of a wireless connection to some nearby town?
>
> yup. ain't a possibility here. where i am, it is not possible even to
> receive a single television station without a satellite dish, and if i
> were a little more energetic today, instead of writing this i'd be out
> putting an enormous, elaborate lightning rod of an fm antenna atop the
> 20-foot tower next to the house.

All of your points are entirely valid....

So where did you end up?  I can think of a few mtns around New Fairfield that 
fit your description but to not receive tv, you must be in a hole.

(Used to live in Ridgefield and surveyed the area many times for ham repeater 
sites.


-- 
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+ Bruce S. Marshall  bmarsh at bmarsh.com  Bellaire, MI         05/01/05 17:46  +
+----------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"It's not the things we don't know that get us into trouble; it's the things
  we do know that aint so." - Will Rogers