Vigorous Dragon - J10-01.jpg (1/2) [262K]

"Indrek Aavisto" wrote in
:

These are excellent pictures.

I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The
file sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break
them up.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto




I'm not knocking Netko's efforts!!

But that is a seriously BAD photoshopping.

There's only TWO in the picture for one thing...
(Compare 1 and 3)

They look like a *literal* cut n' paste job.


OK, I'm through... guess I need another coffee!

On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:53:16 +0100, Indrek Aavisto wrote
(in article ):

These are excellent pictures.

Glad you like them. All credit, of course, goes to the original, anonymous
photographers and the web sites I scavenged them from.

I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The file
sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them up.

The 3-parter J-11 wallpaper test was just that - a test of a three part post.
The others used my newsreader's (larger) default part size for posting
attachments (with some odd-looking results, I notice).

I'll up the size of each part and post another Chinese wallpaper of similar
size to this, hopefully in one part. However, my understanding is that some
servers may reject messages with attachments over a certain size.

N On Sun, 4 Oct 2009 14:53:16 +0100, Indrek Aavisto wrote
N (in article ):

These are excellent pictures.

N Glad you like them. All credit, of course, goes to the original,
N anonymous
N photographers and the web sites I scavenged them from.

I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The
file
sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them
up.

N The 3-parter J-11 wallpaper test was just that - a test of a three
N part post.
N The others used my newsreader's (larger) default part size for
N posting
N attachments (with some odd-looking results, I notice).

N I'll up the size of each part and post another Chinese wallpaper of
N similar
N size to this, hopefully in one part. However, my understanding is
N that some
N servers may reject messages with attachments over a certain size.

Thanks for the response. Yes, some servers don't like very large files, but
I think you will be OK if you stay under 500K for an image.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

"Indrek Aavisto" wrote (in part):

These are excellent pictures.

I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The file
sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them up.

I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3). The
biggest one was only 242 KB, which is small enough to be accepted by
any server I know of.

Nice pics.

--
Mike Mackenzie (AVCOM Services)
Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Remove "XYZ" from the "Reply to" address when responding by email.

"Mike Mackenzie" wrote in message
...

I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3). The
biggest one was only 242 KB, which is small enough to be accepted by
any server I know of.


This highlights the main problem with multi-part files, some servers loose
bits of the photo. Much better to post as one part even if you have to
reduce the quality to get under the magical 1Mb size barrier.

These are excellent pictures.

I'm wondering why you post many of them in multiple parts, though. The
file
sizes look as though they would be OK without the need to break them
up.

MM I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server
MM as
MM single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3). The
MM biggest one was only 242 KB, which is small enough to be accepted by
MM any server I know of.

MM Nice pics.

Thanks for the comments.

I use Power Post to post batches of pictures to the group. The software
labels each image with the batch title and the number in the sequence so
that people will know if they have received all the pictures in the batch. I
agree that this convention may cause some confusion, but opening 1/* will
quickly demonstrate that the posts do not need to be combined.

Cheers,

Indrek Aavisto


--
Criticism is easy; achievement is difficult. W.S. Churchill

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:50:58 GMT, Mike Mackenzie wrote:


I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3)........................

Agent is smart enough to join multi-part posts
--

09=ix

Garrapata wrote (in part):

On Mon, 05 Oct 2009 08:50:58 GMT, Mike Mackenzie wrote:


I don't know why, but each of Indrek's photos appeared on my server as
single part - even though some were annotated (*/2) or (*/3)........................

Agent is smart enough to join multi-part posts

Yes, I know. But even Agent can't join parts when all I have
downloaded is the headers ;-)

--
Mike Mackenzie (AVCOM Services)
Brisbane, AUSTRALIA
Remove "XYZ" from the "Reply to" address when responding by email.

"Mike Mackenzie" wrote in message
...

...............even Agent can't join parts when all I have
downloaded is the headers ;-)


And some of the headers are missing too.