On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:26:28 GMT, Ignoramus22094
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:23:44 -0800, xray wrote:
On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 22:15:55 GMT, Ignoramus22094
wrote:

On Mon, 19 Dec 2005 14:08:54 -0800, xray wrote:
On 19 Dec 2005 10:03:24 -0800, "Too_Many_Tools"
wrote:

I really don't understand why people feel that they need to shoot a
large megapixel file when a 1-2 megapixel photo will do just fine.

Or less, even. For most web stuff pics of 800 x 600 are more than enough
for most stuff and thats about .5 MP.

Pity the poor dial-up surfers.

I would think that even poor dial-up surfers would prefer to be able
to see very detailed, highest quality pictures of the items that they
are buying.

Sellers (like myself) can include clickable thumbnails in their
auctions. That lets users see things at a glance and, at the same
time, see great detail by clicking on thumbnails.

i

I the real world, I rarely see a picture over 1 MP in size that is taken
well enough to justify the extra bits. Usually, I can just tell in great
detail that the picture is out of focus or poorly lighted. I much prefer
a good picture to a big picture.


True but it's hard to find a good camera that doesn't have a rather
large MP size now days. I usually shrink my images to half there size
before posting to my home page. Even then I get a few who complain
about size.

Do you think that these pictures are excessively large? Or do you
think that they do the best job at describing the item's visual
condition?

The last is definitely to large. Even with DSL it took time to load.

Mind you, the buyers see 5 times smaller thumbnails and can expand
them by clicking on them.

http://yabe.algebra.com/~ichudov/mis...A/dscf0003.jpg
http://yabe.algebra.com/~ichudov/mis...B/dscf0001.jpg
http://yabe.algebra.com/~ichudov/mis...w/dscf0000.jpg

Wayne Cook
Shamrock, TX
http://members.dslextreme.com/users/waynecook/index.htm