Re: [Leica] My web page updated

[Nathan Wajsman <nathan.wajsman@euronet.be>]

Jeff,

Thanks for your detailed comments. I struggled with the issue of size and
compression. I certainly like the look of the pictures (especially the landscapes)

at higher resolution and bigger size. Inevitably, electronic publishing of this
type
is a compromise between quality and accessibility. But I really like your idea of
providing viewers a choice between a "standard" and a "high-res" image. I am
going to experiment with that.

Nathan


Jeff Moore wrote:

> It's probably more a reflection of my particular prejudices than an actual
> judgement of your photos (I'm prone to find pictures of people far more
> engaging than landscapes), but FYI, the one I'm particularly drawn to is:
>
>     http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/mm.JPG
>
> The kids' eyes engage the viewer, and the different protruding lines
> implied by the kids' sightlines, their head-angles, the boy's arm,
> and the girl's toy box add enough of a frisson that the attention
> is retained longer.
>
>     http://members.tripod.com/~belgiangator/baby.JPG
>
> is appealing, too, but doesn't hold my attention for as long -- it seems one
> can take it in and digest it more quickly.
>
> > I have followed several helpful suggestions from some of you; in
> > particular, the images are now smaller, around 600x400 pixels, to
> > shorten download times and accomodate people with smaller monitors.
>
> H'mm.  Conversely, my most common complaint about pages purporting to feature
> photographs is that the images are miserably small and overcompressed, making
> it difficult to immerse oneself in the picture.  When I eventually get off my
> lazy butt and put some pictures up for general ridicule, I intend to be as
> good as my word and put up a lo-res path for the technology have-nots and a
> higher-res one for the folk who realize that a computer without lots of
> bandwidth and a 24-bit display at at least 1280x1K, well, is no computer to be
> looking at pictures on, is it?
>
> ...and, actually, I bet that your softly overcast landscapes would be more
> seductive were they presented at a more sensually high resolution.
>
>  -Jeff Moore <jbm@instinet.com>