Re: Smaller Picutures

Hi  all, I won't beat up on the sender, but do agree smaller files would be
appreciated.  I'm not a pensioner, but was laid off from a reasonably good
job and now make half the money which isn't enough to meet my bills.  Still
the computer is an important lifeline so I subscribe to an inexpensive dial
up and also use the dial up at work.  The large files blocked incoming mail
for quite awhile, but I wasn't in a hurry.

>From other forums I visit I know there are a lot of people out there who
don't know how to make their files smaller.  Most photo editing software
provides the tool, but it may not be obvious to the user.  Try all the icons
and drop down menus looking for the words "resize" or "scale".  If you don't
find it, check the program's Help section.  Be sure to save the file as a
slightly different name so you won't lose your larger file which you might
want to use for printing.

That said, I use Yahoo's picture storage.  It is very easy to create albums,
add photos - including descriptions - and send invitations to view.  If I
need a plant ID'd I just place the URL in my message.

Kitty


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tony and Moira" <tomory@xtra.co.nz>
To: "Medit-Plants" <medit-plants@ucdavis.edu>
Sent: Tuesday, October 18, 2005 7:22 PM
Subject: Smaller Picutures


> I do agree that "netiquette" suggests that any pictures sent to a List
> should be in a small format. As has just been demonstrated to us, a
> perfectly sharp clear photo can be sent in a form that does not occupy
more
> than about 40KBytes.
>
> Like Chas Dills (Hi, Chas!!), I too am 83 (or almost - one more week to
go!)
> and on a pension, and a computer is an important "discretionary spending"
> for me. For many years however, we could not afford more than dial-up
access
> to the Internet, and large files to download were a real pain in the
butt!!!
> It has only been in the past 2-3 months that - thanks to the generosity of
> our children - we have been able to afford to switch to a broadband
> connection.
>
> Large photo files are /still/ a nuisance however, since they cannot be
> easily viewed directly from Outlook Express - they have to be saved and
then
> picked up again in another program, or a photo editor which permits
fitting
> the photo to the monitor screen!
>
> Those with digital cameras are always advised to "use the largest format
you
> camera can manage" in order to get files that can be used for
enlargements,
> or extensive editing, without unacceptable losses. That's fine, I do that
> myself, but common sense and ordinary politeness should dictate that
photos
> to be emailed should always be reduced to a small size (personally I aim
for
> 800 x 600 pixels, but any similar size will do) before posting.
>
> The only exception to this should be /after/ the intended recipient has
> agreed that they are  happy to accept large photo files. This cannot be
> achieved on a List open to many subscribers.
>
> Tony Ryan
>
> ----- Original Message ----- 
> From: <yarrow@sfo.com>
> To: "med-plants" <medit-plants@ucdavis.edu>
> Sent: Wednesday, October 19, 2005 8:55 AM
> Subject: Re: Smaller Pictures; was: take pity...
>
>
> >I too have a "slow" connection, so to manage the inevitable huge files
that
> > some relatives and lists send, I've changed the settings on my e-mail
> > program to skip messages larger than a certain size. In Eudora, it's on
> > the
> > Special menu under Settings, under Checking Mail. The too-large messages
> > get stored on my ISP's server, where I can go online to look at them (or
> > just delete them). Depending on your ISP, the server space can fill up
and
> > you can stop receiving e-mail if you don't clear your mailbox regularly.
> >
>
> Tony & Moira Ryan
> Wainuiomata NZ
> Pictures of our garden at:-
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/cherie1/Garden/TonyandMoira/index.htm
>
Other Mailing lists | Author Index | Date Index | Subject Index | Thread Index