I know mine was one of the culprits at 800. But it's interesting that you don't indicate one being that size. Could the original size be lost in translation along the way?
"The optimist believes this is the best of all possible worlds. The pessimist fears it's true" - J Robert Oppenheimer
----- Original Message ----
From: "PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx" <PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:29:57 AM
Subject: Re: PF exhibit on April 12, 2008
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
From: "PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx" <PhotoRoy6@xxxxxxx>
To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Sunday, April 13, 2008 9:29:57 AM
Subject: Re: PF exhibit on April 12, 2008
I checked the size of each one in Photoshop and found only three that were
more than 700
(one at 900, one at 1000 and one at 864 pixels)
In a message dated 4/12/2008 8:45:37 P.M. Eastern Daylight Time,
cameratraveler@xxxxxxx writes:
Dear Gallery participants,
How difficult is it to follow the simple submission guidelines for
the weekly gallery? They call for a maximum dimension of 700 pixels
on the longest side. This week 5 out of the 8 submissions are larger
than that. This makes it irritating to view your pictures on my
laptop. Yes, I know you think your photographic submission is the
greatest thing since pre-sliced cheese, so if you think it really
deserves to be seen at a larger size please provide a link in your
comments to your great masterpiece so we could view it in all its
magnificence elsewhere if we so choose.
Thank you,
Rich
It's Tax Time! Get tips, forms and advice on AOL Money & Finance.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
