back alley
IMAGES
my first attempt to load was unsuccesful because the image size was too big.
let's see if this works - i downsized it in photoshop.
also note, i uploaded the unaltered image into my gallery w/o problem.
let's see if this works - i downsized it in photoshop.
also note, i uploaded the unaltered image into my gallery w/o problem.
Okay, but if you bring it up in Photoshop, change it, and then save it, it could be using a JPEG encoding scheme that is supported by the FORUM. How big was the original image before decimating it? Look at the Camera and Coffee thread. There were some 2048 sized images in there! Photoshop can read one encoding scheme and then save it in another.
back alley
IMAGES
i'm not understanding brian.
jordi had problems loading this image onto the forum but it is loadable.
for this post the screen said it was too big (something like 52000 pixels) i only changed the size.
and in the gallery it loaded as the original.
i can forward the original to you.
joe
jordi had problems loading this image onto the forum but it is loadable.
for this post the screen said it was too big (something like 52000 pixels) i only changed the size.
and in the gallery it loaded as the original.
i can forward the original to you.
joe
N
nwcanonman
Guest
An interesting shot, where was it taken? They have quite a few pedi-cabs in Victoria, BC, but none with the "egg" shape.
Pretty sleek rickshaws! What a contrast with the ancient stone architecture.
Okay, I missed the part about the unaltered image.
I just solved my login problem and posting reply problem when using Windows ME. Nina and I were both having problems with ME and Explorer with Logins on two different sites. I switched to Netscape 7.2 and the problems went away. The problem does not occur with XP, 98, or Windows 2000. Odd thing is I could log onto the gallery and upload pictures without problem, the RFF home page said "thankyou for logging in" but I could not post replies or look at PM's. I could upload to the gallery. With Netscape 4.79 i could do everything but the PM's and EDIT my own replies. Netscape 7.2 appears to have updated its JAVA engine. I checked my Security sttings with the Cookies and they seemed benign.
Anyone else using Windows ME notice any problems?
I just solved my login problem and posting reply problem when using Windows ME. Nina and I were both having problems with ME and Explorer with Logins on two different sites. I switched to Netscape 7.2 and the problems went away. The problem does not occur with XP, 98, or Windows 2000. Odd thing is I could log onto the gallery and upload pictures without problem, the RFF home page said "thankyou for logging in" but I could not post replies or look at PM's. I could upload to the gallery. With Netscape 4.79 i could do everything but the PM's and EDIT my own replies. Netscape 7.2 appears to have updated its JAVA engine. I checked my Security sttings with the Cookies and they seemed benign.
Anyone else using Windows ME notice any problems?
N
nwcanonman
Guest
Brian,
I've never used ME, but had Win 98 before getting the new computer with XP. I've never been so happy, XP is a huge improvement over the previous versions I used before. If you get a chance to move up, I highly recommend it. ~ ; - )
I've never used ME, but had Win 98 before getting the new computer with XP. I've never been so happy, XP is a huge improvement over the previous versions I used before. If you get a chance to move up, I highly recommend it. ~ ; - )
taffer
void
Used Win2k before, and after the big crash last thursday XP Pro, and almost only the new Mozilla Firefox, I highly recommend that browser.
My only 'complain' is that my sessions expire way to soon (5-10 minutes) but that also happens me with other sites so I've used myself to ctrl-copy my posts before submitting , just in case.
Agree, nice age contrast, I bet the stone masons didn't have that in mind
My only 'complain' is that my sessions expire way to soon (5-10 minutes) but that also happens me with other sites so I've used myself to ctrl-copy my posts before submitting , just in case.
Agree, nice age contrast, I bet the stone masons didn't have that in mind
Last edited: