Re: [OT] ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image

[James Brook <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au>]

Dave Proctor wrote:
> 
> Are you telling me that a large state government body such as State Rail
> does not have a legal section to advise them of the Copyright Act 1968 (as
> amended), particularly since there is a copyright notice on the page itself?
> Are you saying that they are so think that they might think that because
> there is no copyright notice on the pic itself, then they can do what they
> like with it? I don't think so.

Did I ever say it would stop it? All it does is make it clear to them
that the photo is copyright, even though they should already know this.
It also means they have to modify the image to publish it without the
symbol. It is just a small thing that can help to discourage piracy of
photos, not stop it. It's like a wheel lock on a car. A professional can
get around them easily, but the amateur might go to a car without the
wheel lock.

> But then, given your stubbornness over publishing photos that you want to
> publish (and everyone else on the net has to adjust their computers to fit
> in with you, rather than vice versa) this is not surprising.

If you don't like my site, then don't look at it. I was just suggesting
a way that users can view my images without having to save it and open
it in an imaging tool. As they are my photos, I have the right to
publish them as I like. I have recieved a number of compliments from
people who have been looking for high quality images on the net, but
have never been able to find them. It could be argued that you are also
stubborn by demanding that I reduce the size of my photos just to fit
your computer. 

> Ummm, so you are telling me that people have to change their computers
> settings in order to view your pics?????

You can view thumbnails of the photos and then select the ones you want
to download for personal use. If you are just looking for a bunch of
happy snaps, go to another page.

> 
> Ooooookay.
> 
> I might just bypass your pics - I know a lot of people who alrady do so -
> until you lose some of your arrogance.

You're calling me arrogant? Just look at your attitude. I know a lot of
people that view my photos, so it works both ways. I suppose you think
everyone should do exactly what you want. I am not expecting that
everyone will like my photos, just as I don't like small 50kb jpegs.

It's not that hard to change resolutions for a short time, and I was
just suggesting it as a way to view my photos without having to save
them. Changing resolutions is a very simple and easy procedure these
days. I do it all the time for a number of applications.

> 
> Perhaps you should speak to some professional website designers. Anyone who
> designs websites would be laughed at for suggetsing that visitors to the
> site should have to adjust their screen resolutions to view non-standard
> pages.
> 

The pages are designed for 800x600 or higher. I can't help it that
Netscape or IE doesn't provide an auto-resize option (other than
creating another HTML document) when displaying images.
  
-- 
- James Brook -

----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:     
mailto:ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au
Victorian Railfan Web Site:    
http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/
----------------------------------------------------------------