Expected versus Taken

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by arcturus1111gr@yahoo.gr, Mar 25, 2005.

  1. Guest

    A photograph of 3 helicopters and as I was lowering the camera I
    noticed the possibility of one more item going the opposite way. At
    lower left corner (beside the real thing) a crop from the original
    2048X1536 photograph.

    Its amazing the difference of the picture expected and picture taken.

    http://users.myqnet.gr/~natsinas/index03H.html

    (2nd picture)
     
    , Mar 25, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Mike Guest

    A "text trail" mouse cursor on a site where you want people to look at your
    photographic work? That's a BAD idea! It's distracting.


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > A photograph of 3 helicopters and as I was lowering the camera I
    > noticed the possibility of one more item going the opposite way. At
    > lower left corner (beside the real thing) a crop from the original
    > 2048X1536 photograph.
    >
    > Its amazing the difference of the picture expected and picture taken.
    >
    > http://users.myqnet.gr/~natsinas/index03H.html
    >
    > (2nd picture)
    >
     
    Mike, Mar 25, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > A photograph of 3 helicopters and as I was lowering the camera I
    > noticed the possibility of one more item going the opposite way. At
    > lower left corner (beside the real thing) a crop from the original
    > 2048X1536 photograph.
    >
    > Its amazing the difference of the picture expected and picture taken.
    >
    > http://users.myqnet.gr/~natsinas/index03H.html
    >
    > (2nd picture)
    >


    One of the great joys of photography is that the camera often sees
    things which your mind filtered out. Sometimes this is serendipitous,
    sometimes it messes up the whole composition. But it's fun for
    amateurs. Pros would just mask out the birds....


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 25, 2005
    #3
  4. Colin D Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > A photograph of 3 helicopters and as I was lowering the camera I
    > noticed the possibility of one more item going the opposite way. At
    > lower left corner (beside the real thing) a crop from the original
    > 2048X1536 photograph.
    >
    > Its amazing the difference of the picture expected and picture taken.
    >
    > http://users.myqnet.gr/~natsinas/index03H.html
    >
    > (2nd picture)


    Nice pictures, and get the duck! as you say. However, your website
    takes an age - and many kilobytes - to load, even with a dsl
    connection. I nearly abandoned waiting for it.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Mar 25, 2005
    #4
  5. Guest

    Thank you
     
    , Mar 25, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    It is now a must do (create separate pages)

    Thanx
     
    , Mar 25, 2005
    #6
  7. Destin_FL Guest

    I'm on cable internet in north florida.... the whole entire page took maybe 6 or
    7 seconds to load.
    But yeah, on DSL or dial-up it would be a bear.

    T



    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    It is now a must do (create separate pages)

    Thanx
     
    Destin_FL, Mar 25, 2005
    #7
  8. Confused Guest

    In message <B8X0e.8995$>
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    > ...
    > Pros would just mask out the birds....


    I'd crop off the top and right. Then I'd mask out the scandinavian
    vertical antenna. (surprised pros might miss that... heh)

    I like the contrast of the birds... ;^)

    Jeff
     
    Confused, Mar 26, 2005
    #8
  9. Confused Guest

    In message <>
    wrote:

    > It is now a must do (create separate pages)


    The DSL speed was okay from this SoCal location. (IOW I didn't notice
    it being slow.)

    Jeff
     
    Confused, Mar 26, 2005
    #9
  10. Ron Hunter Guest

    Colin D wrote:
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >>A photograph of 3 helicopters and as I was lowering the camera I
    >>noticed the possibility of one more item going the opposite way. At
    >>lower left corner (beside the real thing) a crop from the original
    >>2048X1536 photograph.
    >>
    >>Its amazing the difference of the picture expected and picture taken.
    >>
    >>http://users.myqnet.gr/~natsinas/index03H.html
    >>
    >>(2nd picture)

    >
    >
    > Nice pictures, and get the duck! as you say. However, your website
    > takes an age - and many kilobytes - to load, even with a dsl
    > connection. I nearly abandoned waiting for it.
    >
    > Colin


    Must be the routing. Took about 3 seconds to load here (3mbps cable).


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 26, 2005
    #10
  11. Guest

    In message <Jk31e.9184$>,
    Ron Hunter <> wrote:

    >Must be the routing. Took about 3 seconds to load here (3mbps cable).


    Could be the person's computer, as well.

    Lots of people, for example, are running relatively new DELL computers
    with 128MB. Why DELL is selling 128MB computers with XP installed is a
    mystery. 256 or 384 should be the absolute minimum for a bottom-end
    system.

    --

    <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    John P Sheehy <>
    ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><
     
    , Mar 26, 2005
    #11
  12. Colin D Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > In message <Jk31e.9184$>,
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    > >Must be the routing. Took about 3 seconds to load here (3mbps cable).

    >
    > Could be the person's computer, as well.
    >
    > Lots of people, for example, are running relatively new DELL computers
    > with 128MB. Why DELL is selling 128MB computers with XP installed is a
    > mystery. 256 or 384 should be the absolute minimum for a bottom-end
    > system.
    >
    > --
    >
    > <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    > John P Sheehy <>
    > ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><


    No, it's not my computer, which is an Asus P4C800-E Deluxe, a top - and
    expensive - board, running a 3.0 GHz P4 cpu at 10% overclocked - that's
    3.3 GHZ effective - and a gig of ram.

    However, DSL in this country (NZ) is mostly throttled to 256kBytes
    download speed, so that's a factor, but the average website loads in a
    few to several seconds; the site in question took well over a minute,
    with numerous bits and pieces coming down one after the other.

    Colin
     
    Colin D, Mar 26, 2005
    #12
  13. Ron Hunter Guest

    wrote:
    > In message <Jk31e.9184$>,
    > Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >
    >
    >>Must be the routing. Took about 3 seconds to load here (3mbps cable).

    >
    >
    > Could be the person's computer, as well.
    >
    > Lots of people, for example, are running relatively new DELL computers
    > with 128MB. Why DELL is selling 128MB computers with XP installed is a
    > mystery. 256 or 384 should be the absolute minimum for a bottom-end
    > system.
    >

    With 512 Meg RAM modules selling for $49, one wonders WHY anyone sells a
    WinXP computer with less than 512 Meg. WinXP runs great, even on my 1.3
    Ghz laptop at 512 meg.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 26, 2005
    #13
  14. Steve Guest

    wrote:


    > Lots of people, for example, are running relatively new DELL computers
    > with 128MB. Why DELL is selling 128MB computers with XP installed is a
    > mystery. 256 or 384 should be the absolute minimum for a bottom-end
    > system.


    The choice should be 256 or 512 (realistically it should be 512 or a full gig). 384
    just means they'll have plenty of 128MB DIMMS that they can use to make low end
    computers for people who think they can get a good machine for less than $500.

    --
    Steve

    The above can be construed as personal opinion in the absence of a reasonable
    belief that it was intended as a statement of fact.

    If you want a reply to reach me, remove the SPAMTRAP from the address.
     
    Steve, Mar 26, 2005
    #14
  15. Ron Hunter Guest

    Colin D wrote:
    >
    > wrote:
    >
    >>In message <Jk31e.9184$>,
    >>Ron Hunter <> wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>Must be the routing. Took about 3 seconds to load here (3mbps cable).

    >>
    >>Could be the person's computer, as well.
    >>
    >>Lots of people, for example, are running relatively new DELL computers
    >>with 128MB. Why DELL is selling 128MB computers with XP installed is a
    >>mystery. 256 or 384 should be the absolute minimum for a bottom-end
    >>system.
    >>
    >>--
    >>
    >> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>>< ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<>
    >> John P Sheehy <>
    >> ><<> <>>< <>>< ><<> <>>< ><<> ><<> <>><

    >
    >
    > No, it's not my computer, which is an Asus P4C800-E Deluxe, a top - and
    > expensive - board, running a 3.0 GHz P4 cpu at 10% overclocked - that's
    > 3.3 GHZ effective - and a gig of ram.
    >
    > However, DSL in this country (NZ) is mostly throttled to 256kBytes
    > download speed, so that's a factor, but the average website loads in a
    > few to several seconds; the site in question took well over a minute,
    > with numerous bits and pieces coming down one after the other.
    >
    > Colin

    One has to consider where you are, and where the website is. The longer
    the distance, the more likely there is to be significant routing delay.
    All it takes is one overloaded router to make the stream start and
    stop and take 10 times longer that it should to deliver the website.


    --
    Ron Hunter
     
    Ron Hunter, Mar 26, 2005
    #15
  16. Guest

    A friend translated in English, the few words of the first photograph.

    (For anyone having the curiosity...)
     
    , Mar 27, 2005
    #16
  17. drwxr-xr-x Guest

    On 27 Mar 2005 11:00:33 -0800, wrote:
    > A friend translated in English, the few words of the first photograph.
    >
    > (For anyone having the curiosity...)


    What ever are you nattering on about?

    Oh, I see ... another clumsy Google poster.
     
    drwxr-xr-x, Mar 27, 2005
    #17
  18. Guest

    Thank you for noticing and pointing out!
     
    , Mar 30, 2005
    #18
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. ron
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    1,061
  2. =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=

    Certification - MCP versus MCSA versus MCSE

    =?Utf-8?B?Q2FuYWRhX0d1eU0=?=, Aug 24, 2006, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    768
    =?Utf-8?B?TW9udHJlYWwgTUNTQQ==?=
    Aug 24, 2006
  3. Replies:
    3
    Views:
    626
  4. Little Green Eyed Dragon

    TV screens big versus Small LCD versus Plasma.

    Little Green Eyed Dragon, Mar 2, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    402
    Little Green Eyed Dragon
    Mar 2, 2007
  5. Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo

    Re: Mozilla versus IE versus Opera versus Safari

    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo, May 8, 2008, in forum: Firefox
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    783
    Peter Potamus the Purple Hippo
    May 8, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page