<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Drink and cameras don&#8217;t mix&#8230;.</title>
	<link>http://usualsuspects.deepmilk.co.uk/2008/01/25/drink-and-cameras-dont-mix/</link>
	<description>individually together</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 04 Feb 2012 12:10:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: admin</title>
		<link>http://usualsuspects.deepmilk.co.uk/2008/01/25/drink-and-cameras-dont-mix/#comment-136</link>
		<author>admin</author>
		<pubDate>Thu, 31 Jan 2008 09:34:54 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://usualsuspects.deepmilk.co.uk/2008/01/25/drink-and-cameras-dont-mix/#comment-136</guid>
		<description>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!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Re the size of the &#8216;clicked on&#8217; images, they display at that size because that&#8217;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 &#8216;web-friendly&#8217; 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&#8217;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!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: trev</title>
		<link>http://usualsuspects.deepmilk.co.uk/2008/01/25/drink-and-cameras-dont-mix/#comment-135</link>
		<author>trev</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 16:39:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://usualsuspects.deepmilk.co.uk/2008/01/25/drink-and-cameras-dont-mix/#comment-135</guid>
		<description>I woz dwunk, verry verrry dwunk</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I woz dwunk, verry verrry dwunk</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Paul D</title>
		<link>http://usualsuspects.deepmilk.co.uk/2008/01/25/drink-and-cameras-dont-mix/#comment-133</link>
		<author>Paul D</author>
		<pubDate>Sat, 26 Jan 2008 03:15:17 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://usualsuspects.deepmilk.co.uk/2008/01/25/drink-and-cameras-dont-mix/#comment-133</guid>
		<description>Clicky...doesn't blow them up.
Webmaster..?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Clicky&#8230;doesn&#8217;t blow them up.<br />
Webmaster..?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

