Latest Postings
- 18/08/2009: Rubbish day
- 27/02/2009: Dubai
- 20/01/2009: Is there anybody out there?
- 20/07/2008: We're getting a puppy!
- 16/07/2008: CD Baby
- 01/07/2008: Triathlon
- 26/04/2008: Lost in time & space....
- 15/04/2008: THREE CASTLES WALK
- 18/03/2008: Our new car
- 10/03/2008: Well, would you believe it . . . . . .
Links
Archives
« Happy New Year 2008 | Testing…. »
Drink and cameras don’t mix….
Just to show that a great camera doesn’t necessarily mean great photos….. 
26/01/2008 at 05:15 am
Clicky…doesn’t blow them up.
Webmaster..?
30/01/2008 at 06:39 pm
I woz dwunk, verry verrry dwunk
31/01/2008 at 11:34 am
Re the size of the ‘clicked on’ images, they display at that size because that’s the size that the uploaded pics actually are (width and height). The pics within the text of the blog are thumbnails of any uploaded image. So if a larger image was loaded it would fit on the blog page the same but display bigger when clicked. I recommend that any uploaded images are made ‘web-friendly’ to ease the time they take to download and the space they use on the server. You can produce big display images (pixel width x pixel height) with smaller file sizes by processing them in an image viewer. Pics straight off cameras are huge (some of Neil’s have been 11Mb each!) but a decent web-image of the same size could probably be produced at around 100-200Kb - 50 times smaller in file size!) Maybe you all need lessons!