Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Computer Support > Pixure I took in NY

Reply
Thread Tools

Pixure I took in NY

 
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2009
joevan wrote:
> On Fri, 04 Sep 2009 07:40:21 -0500, philo <(E-Mail Removed)>
> wrote:
>
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:50 -0500, philo wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn /Manhattan
>>>>
>>>> My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window... but knew it
>>>> would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
>>>> glare/reflection from the glass...
>>>>
>>>> plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
>>>>
>>>> As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
>>>> hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
>>>>
>>>> so I got the result posted here.
>>>>
>>>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (the link may be case sensitive)
>>> Sort of connected: listening to the radio earlier, on the news there was
>>> an item about a New York with a novel idea to get itself noticed using
>>> life-sized photographs in the windows.
>>>
>>> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/fr...wsid_10000000/
>>> newsid_10001300/10001347.stm >
>>>
>>> As usual, if the link breaks over two lines, copy everything between the
>>> carets and paste into the address bar of the browser of your choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>> OMG!
>>
>> I just realized that when i went to the window and took the shots i was
>> probably in my underwear...
>> the entire city must have seen me and had a good laugh <G>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> reminds me of the joke about the old lady who called the cops because
>> the neighbors were walking around in their house naked
>>
>>
>> when the cops came over and looked out her window, they said they could
>> not see anything.
>>
>> she handed then the binoculars and said: "Well you need these of course!"

> That was you in the pink underwear with the camera? Good knees.
> Interesting photo too.




>>>blush<<<<

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2009
Rôgêr wrote:
> philo wrote:
>> Aardvark wrote:
>>> On Thu, 03 Sep 2009 17:11:50 -0500, philo wrote:
>>>
>>>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This was taken from the 16th floor of the Midtown Holiday Inn
>>>> /Manhattan
>>>>
>>>> My GF told me to have a look at the sunset.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I decided to take a photo through the thermo pane window... but knew it
>>>> would be difficult to get a good one...as there was sure to be
>>>> glare/reflection from the glass...
>>>>
>>>> plus , to make things worse...there was a lot of condensation.
>>>>
>>>> As I was trying to find a good spot without condensation I decided...
>>>> hey, shoot through it and see what happens...
>>>>
>>>> so I got the result posted here.
>>>>
>>>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as posted
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> (the link may be case sensitive)
>>>
>>> Sort of connected: listening to the radio earlier, on the news there
>>> was an item about a New York with a novel idea to get itself noticed
>>> using life-sized photographs in the windows.
>>>
>>> < http://news.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/hi/fr...wsid_10000000/
>>> newsid_10001300/10001347.stm >
>>>
>>> As usual, if the link breaks over two lines, copy everything between
>>> the carets and paste into the address bar of the browser of your choice.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>
>>
>> OMG!
>>
>> I just realized that when i went to the window and took the shots i
>> was probably in my underwear...
>> the entire city must have seen me and had a good laugh <G>

>
> Tell me more. I'm getting more and more excited.
>




not too many folks get excited by a bald 60 year old man running around
in his underwear..

I bet that half the city of NY never even noticed me
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
William R. Walsh
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2009
Hi!

> Though a few of my experiments were successful.


I've heard it said (at www.dansdata.com and at other places) that the secret
to good photography is lots of bad photography. I think there is some truth
to that.

I do kind of like the way your picture turned out.

William


 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2009
philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

> thanatoid wrote:
>> philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:h7pevc$3e5$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>>
>>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG

>>
>> <SNIP>
>>
>>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as
>>> posted

>>
>> Why would anyone assume it was edited or manipulated? It looks
>> completely normal, and a very nice image, too, congratulations.
>>
>> Although you REALLY should have done some image reduction. While
>> under 200,000 KB (COULD be smaller but at least it's not 3 MB)
>> 3072x2048 pixels is a /little/ large, even for people with newer
>> monitors, let alone 800x600 (me and apparently no one else in
>> the world - I had to set the zoom to 20% [!] in Opera) or even
>> 1024x768 (most people in pre-LCD tyranny days).
>>
>> (Of the 3 browsers I am forced to use, none of them being IE,
>> only Firefox 2.whatever scaled the image automatically. I don't
>> know if IE does or doesn't.)
>>
>> And your other pix /are/ nice and small...
>>
>>

>
>
> Glad you like it...
>
> it's only 175k so I figured no one would have trouble loading that and
> when I specified image size it was 4" x 3" (I think)
>

Anything under 500K is a reasonable size. Any smaller and you would start
to get too much visible pixelation IMHO.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-04-2009
William R. Walsh wrote:
> Hi!
>
>> Though a few of my experiments were successful.

>
> I've heard it said (at www.dansdata.com and at other places) that the secret
> to good photography is lots of bad photography. I think there is some truth
> to that.
>
> I do kind of like the way your picture turned out.
>
> William
>
>




Thanks for commenting.

As I mentioned I'll be putting that in the show I'll be in next month

I'll see what they say.


Anyway it was fun
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2009
chuckcar wrote:
> philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> thanatoid wrote:
>>> philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:h7pevc$3e5$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>>>
>>>> http://www.plazaearth.com/philo/Sunset.JPG
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>>> The image is 100% *not* edited...It was taken exactly as
>>>> posted
>>> Why would anyone assume it was edited or manipulated? It looks
>>> completely normal, and a very nice image, too, congratulations.
>>>
>>> Although you REALLY should have done some image reduction. While
>>> under 200,000 KB (COULD be smaller but at least it's not 3 MB)
>>> 3072x2048 pixels is a /little/ large, even for people with newer
>>> monitors, let alone 800x600 (me and apparently no one else in
>>> the world - I had to set the zoom to 20% [!] in Opera) or even
>>> 1024x768 (most people in pre-LCD tyranny days).
>>>
>>> (Of the 3 browsers I am forced to use, none of them being IE,
>>> only Firefox 2.whatever scaled the image automatically. I don't
>>> know if IE does or doesn't.)
>>>
>>> And your other pix /are/ nice and small...
>>>
>>>

>>
>> Glad you like it...
>>
>> it's only 175k so I figured no one would have trouble loading that and
>> when I specified image size it was 4" x 3" (I think)
>>

> Anything under 500K is a reasonable size. Any smaller and you would start
> to get too much visible pixelation IMHO.
>




Believe it or not...some folks still use dial-up

also:

Most photographers don't publish hi-def images as then anyone could just
steal them and print them out
 
Reply With Quote
 
chuckcar
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2009
philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
news:h7sans$l3u$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:

> chuckcar wrote:
>> philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):


>
> Believe it or not...some folks still use dial-up
>

Hmm 500KB at 56Kb/s. That's 89 seconds to load optimally or about 110
seconds for a decent connection. So say 2 minutes. Yeah, that's a chunk of
someones life, but surely flash pages take even longer - even if they're
*not* youtube.

> also:
>
> Most photographers don't publish hi-def images as then anyone could just
> steal them and print them out
>

Or are given them as I believe the facts are: If your web page puts it on
*my* computer, you gave me a copy period. Pretty hard to dispute. Your
example would still be valid for this: you aren't giving me the same file
as the original, So copyright is retained on the original image.

--
(setq (chuck nil) car(chuck) )
 
Reply With Quote
 
philo
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-05-2009
chuckcar wrote:
> philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> news:h7sans$l3u$(E-Mail Removed)-september.org:
>
>> chuckcar wrote:
>>> philo <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
>>> news:(E-Mail Removed):

>
>> Believe it or not...some folks still use dial-up
>>

> Hmm 500KB at 56Kb/s. That's 89 seconds to load optimally or about 110
> seconds for a decent connection. So say 2 minutes. Yeah, that's a chunk of
> someones life, but surely flash pages take even longer - even if they're
> *not* youtube.
>
>> also:
>>
>> Most photographers don't publish hi-def images as then anyone could just
>> steal them and print them out
>>

> Or are given them as I believe the facts are: If your web page puts it on
> *my* computer, you gave me a copy period. Pretty hard to dispute. Your
> example would still be valid for this: you aren't giving me the same file
> as the original, So copyright is retained on the original image.
>




Yeah, I figure that if I put an image up on my website...then if someone
wants it they can just print it out...
but if it's a small image, they won't be able to make a decent , large
print from it.

 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
who took 70-296? Rowdy Yates MCSE 2 04-20-2004 05:38 PM
Just took exam, now what? Rick MCSD 0 04-04-2004 09:32 PM
I think my brain took a dump ROOT@LOCALHOST.LOCALDOMAIN MCSE 0 03-06-2004 09:37 PM
Trying to track a test I took hkjanss Microsoft Certification 1 10-31-2003 04:28 AM
Took 71-282 Beta Today A. Vargas MCSE 1 10-05-2003 09:04 PM



Advertisments