Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Photo of the Day (January 2008)
- Thread starter YS2003
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Morning Village Veil
Morning Village Veil
Nong Khiew, Laos
Dec. 22, 2007
Nikon D40x
Micro Nikkor 105mm AF-D
30s @ f9
Hoya 72R IR filter
The sun lifted the valley mists every morning by 9 or 10 am from this small mountain village in northern Laos.
ps: Thanks folks for the comments on yesterday's post. Appreciated!
Morning Village Veil
Nong Khiew, Laos
Dec. 22, 2007
Nikon D40x
Micro Nikkor 105mm AF-D
30s @ f9
Hoya 72R IR filter
The sun lifted the valley mists every morning by 9 or 10 am from this small mountain village in northern Laos.
ps: Thanks folks for the comments on yesterday's post. Appreciated!
Really? 1000 pixels is wider than your iMac's screen?
Thanks Doylem! No, it's just you, I had to crop out the rough edges since its a three-shot panorama as well.Nice shot... but somehow the picture looks too tightly cropped... like there's a bottom half that's missing (or maybe it's just me
Awesome shot freebooter. I love your landscape work.
L
Lau
Guest
Taken at 11:55 am on Christmas Day at my parents' place, but I've only just got around to cropping the image for a more pleasing composition. It ain't perfect, but I'm still learning.
That's funny, as I took a very similar one on Christmas Eve at my parents' place! (This was in Essex, by the way, just for reference - where was yours?) The fog was crazy at Christmas.
Attachments
In UK we call this a wagtail: one of my favourite birds, usually seen near water. Is this the US name too?
Sorry, my mistake.
At the time I was thinking height, not width. But still, keep in mind, a normal browsing window is approx. 1000 pixels wide (the width of most websites), so when there's a photo 1000 pixels wide in the forums, it doesn't fit.
And scroll up this page to see the size of some these photos. Two of them, posted by squeeks and LillieDesigns, are larger than what I have previously posted. I don't see any post edits on those though. It's extremely inconsistent. This new moderator (who hasn't posted once in this thread might I add) should have left the thread as it has always been rather than trying to do something beneficial, but instead doing it randomly at the inconvenience of several members who use this thread often.
This photo was taken in Arkansas last week, if I'm not mistaken this is a Mockingbird. It just so happens that the Mockingbird is the state bird of Arkansas.
And this matters why?
Have patience.
And contrary to popular myth, there are still people in this world stuck with dial-up.
Sorry, my mistake.
But still, keep in mind, a normal browsing window is approx. 1000 pixels wide (the width of most websites), so when there's a photo 1000 pixels wide in the forums, it doesn't fit.
There is really no standard width for websites, with many of them reformatting to the size of the browser window, at least as best as they can. I use an older Thinkpad with only a 800 pix wide screen, and a desktop Mac with a 19" monitor and much higher resolution. On my laptop, yes... I have to scroll often up and down or sideways to see the entirety of the larger pics posted here, but when I use my desktop they don't look that big at all. My pics posted here are by default 800 pix wide (or tall if vertical) and unless you have an ancient computer like me, they don't present any kind of problem viewing on this forum. I really didn't see what the fuss was about concerning pics which were under 1000 pix wide, since so many other forums I regularly visit show similar sized pictures all the time. (examples would be shots where someone is showing how they installed something or the classic unpacking shots when someone gets some hot product in the first few days.) These things all seem to just be accepted. This thread, and forum is for photography, and with that in mind, image posting is to be expected. Just my $0.02. Peace, and out!
Heh heh, I was one of them until just a few months ago. But... I also knew that if I was browsing a thread to look at pictures, I was in for a good wait. And, if for the sake of the few of us on dial-up, you guys restricted the picture postings to thumbnails, what's the point of the thread? For a dial-up user you still have to endure the loading of the main image to see it bigger than a postage stamp, and if you didn't intend to view the pictures in the first place, then the thread wouldn't make sense to visit.
On the point of the moderator not being a regular thread/forum contributor: Well, certainly mods don't have to be, but to have a sense for what the forum/thread means to those who are regular contributors, a mod who is active in the forum certainly would have more credibility to resolve issues, and explain things that matter to the rest of us peons who do make up the core constituency... if you get my meaning.... Do you want a bean counter deciding how you display your art? Do you want a photographer telling you how to quote your code? It's all in how it's done, and if the concerns of the base users are being addressed fairly, regardless of the forum. Just food for thought. Cheers.
Agreed.
I regularly view this thread and have been doing so for a long time. It is perhaps why I have been the main moderator editing the pictures recently because I have been viewing this thread to look at the pictures.
If you want to see what it can become like look at this page as an example.
It is a matter that we are looking into.
Agreed.
However... there's no reason in the world that a poster needs to post a enormous image when a thumbnailed image that is linked to their enormous image would suffice. Someone scrolls through, sees one(s) they like, click on the linked image. This is the Photo of the Day, not the Bandwidth Hog of the Day thread, ya?
Easy. Clean. Neat.
Please use the