On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 00:40:52 +0200, JRW wrote:

Peter Hucker wrote:
On Sun, 24 Aug 2008 23:30:15 +0200, JRW wrote:


Peter Hucker wrote:

On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 22:45:40 +0200, JRW wrote:



Peter Hucker wrote:


On Sat, 23 Aug 2008 06:52:31 -0400, "Glen in Orlando"
wrote:




Hey Clem...
the most effective method, as compared to your three posts.. is right
here....
Resized to a whopping 135kb...
Quck, easy, and guess what.. a good old fashioned JPEG....
I can view anything posted here...yENC, Mime, etc..etc..
but WHAT IS THE POINT?



The point is you've removed half the data in the file.



Hogwash, then you are saying that all the other posters should post such
large files. Don't think so.

It's been asked a few times, just why you need such "high quality". The
loss of quality that I have from my photos is minimal.
You don't see this sort of crap going on in other picture groups and I
know you are in some of them. So do tell, why do you expressly need this
"so called high quality"?
If it's for commercial use, you are in the wrong place!!! And that's a fact!


If you resize it, you are removing a LOT of data.


lol so much for not answering the question. Again: WHY, do you, need
such high quality?


Because I don't just look at them once.

Oh, like that makes the difference....lol
So those 1024's that the folks post are good enough for you? Does that
mean you "only" download "high quality"....

Are you a nerd? Seems like it??

Even if I looked at them once, why would I want to miss the details?
--
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com

Basic Flying Rules: "Try to stay in the middle of the air. Do not go near the edges of it. The edges of the air can be recognized by the appearance of ground, buildings, sea, trees and interstellar space. It is much more difficult to fly there."