Free Shipping on ALL Products
camera reviewsbest cameraslens reviewsphotography tipscamera forumvideo toursphotography bookssupport me
It is currently Tue Jul 22, 2014 9:21 pm

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:45 am 
You can't please everyone and when it comes down to situations like this I think catering to the majority of users would be the logical thing to do. To code a webpage that compensates for the different resolutions would require "liquid code" and from what I understand, it's pretty tough to code a webpage like that.

Caleb, are you using Firefox? If so, does it help if you remove the page style? You will have to put up with a less attractive interface, but all the price grabber links, and images critical to the function of the site are still there.

It's under the "view" drop down menu, View-> Page Style -> No style.

Hope that helps.


Last edited by grahamnp on Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Feb 07, 2008 7:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:13 am
Posts: 241
Location: RI, USA
No "liquid coding" is necessary. They would just have to move the banner over the logo (the usual place for banners), and then set all the tables to 100% (i.e., to stretch to the margins of the browser window). It's very easy.

I assume the menu bar is in a table also, so that could be adjusted to 100% also. If it's not in a table, then the buttons would have to be shrunk horizontally, which would make the menu bar narrower.

Removing the page style in Firefox did indeed make everything fit within the window margins, but the page looks terrible. I have already created a new desktop at 1024 x 768 and I'll switch back and forth between that and my 800 x 600 desktop. But it's more mouse clicks. Gordon could fix this if he wanted to.

I'm now editing this page in Firefox without styles; I might be able to get used to this.

Actually, it just occurred to me -- all they might have to do is to make the tables that contain the posts adjustable to the window margins (i.e., set them to 100%). I'm not sure, though. Different browsers handle pages differently.

Caleb


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 5:28 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:13 am
Posts: 241
Location: RI, USA
I've been avoiding this forum because I resented that Gordon changed it so that it wouldn't fit on my 800 x 600 screen, but I came back tonight and found it fixed. Thank you very much, Gordon!

I have just experimented with various screen resolutions, and I find that the forum tables stretch to whatever resolution I set my screen at. I knew that this was possible, and I very much appreciate your doing this. I am very grateful, as I like this site and would like to participate.

I hope it wasn't too much trouble making the change.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:37 am 
Let me be te first to welcome you back on board Caleb 8) :lol: :!:
hope all hard feelings are lost and forgotten and hope that you will take part it the forms once again 8) :D
Hope you did not miss out on to much useful info.


Nick


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 6:42 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:13 am
Posts: 241
Location: RI, USA
I knew it could be done!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:06 pm 
Not wanting to draw this one out (as the situation has been fixed!) but how, as a photographer, and I assume you do some work with photoshop or similar, do you get on with using an 800x600 screen?! I assume you're using a CRT screen as I don't believe TFTs have been made in such a low resolution since.. well, the dawn of time!

I'm a web designer/developer and when I check stats for sites I work on, there's rarely, if ever any visitors with 800x600 resolution and so I simply don't design for that resolution anymore. But Photoshop/image editing in 800x600? That must be the most painful thing in the world! Even using 1024x768 for image editing isn't a lot of fun and are font sizes really that much smaller in the higher res?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 7:42 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:13 am
Posts: 241
Location: RI, USA
I can answer all your questions.

First, I do product photography (of beads at www.purebeads.com). I use Paint Shop Pro 10 to edit the photos. PSP is still being made to fit on an 800 x 600 screen. Photoshop and Photoshop Elements are not. I have found that when I edit photos at 800 x 600, I can see the imperfections much better because the pixels are larger. Then, when the photos are viewed at 1024 x 768 or higher, they look all the more perfect. In other words, if I can get the photos looking good at the lower resolution, they look great at high resolutions.

Once I edited a photo at 1024 x 768. Editing a product photo involves: selecting the best shot out of about ten, removing any color cast, cropping the edges, lightening the photo, adding contrast, decreasing color saturation (which increases with the previous two steps), shrinking the photo, sharpening it, and then adding text. The photo that I edited at 1024 x 768 was a little blurry right out of the camera (at that time I was using a much poorer camera), and when I looked at it at 800 x 600 it was totally unacceptable. I redid it at 800 x 600 and got a much more satisfying result, and have edited all photos at the lower resolution ever since.

(If you go to my site, you'll find plenty of lousy pictures, but most of those are older; I get better as time passes. I should also say that I'm not an absolute perfectionist, so occasionally a mediocre photo slips through.)

Second, I have repeatedly switched my screen resolution to 1024 x 768 and tried to get used to it (I have a 17" CRT), and in every case I had to switch back. The fonts are just too small and my eyes are much more comfortable at 800 x 600. I frankly don't know how everyone can run their computers at such high resolutions and work comfortably; I certainly can't (and there's nothing wrong with my vision). My CRT is truly excellent, and I feel very fortunate to have bought such a good one (made my Philips) before manufacturers started to phase them out. When I have considered buying an LCD, I always give up because all of them have ridiculously high "native" resolutions.

Getting back to photos, viewing them at 100% on an 800 x 600 screen reveals all the defects very well. Because of that, I've become what you might call a "pixel peeper" who is very critical of the image quality coming out of most digital cameras. That's why I am so excited about, and keep talking about, the Sigma DP1 camera that will be coming out soon -- it's photos pass the "low-resolution test".

On my computer I have two desktops, one set at 800 x 600 and one set at 1024 x 768. I just sent this editing window to the high-resolution desktop. These letters that I am typing are now uncomfortably small for me -- what was normal-sized print has turned into fine print. Why would I want to work with fine print all day? As I said, I don't know how people do it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:02 pm 
I work off a 17" laptop screen (my macbook pro) and a 23" external screen. Both have a resolution of 1920x1200. I enjoy having a large work space to have various tools and windows in photoshop open at once without having to close things up all the time.

I'm not convinced that editing images at 800x600 gives you any sharper an image to work from than at a higher resolution. Surely, simply zooming into the image will let you view pixels at any size?

On my macbook pro, fonts are no smaller when I run it at 1920x1200 than they are if I run it at a lower resolution, although they're not as sharp because the native resolution of the screen is 1920x1200. However, even if I was running on a CRT screen, they would still be the same size as font size doesn't really have much to do with what resolution you're running at, you just lose desktop space. But then, it could well be different on Windows but it's been a while since I used Windows so couldn't really say.

Each to their own but I think you're nuts using 800x600! :)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 10:47 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:13 am
Posts: 241
Location: RI, USA
I don't think it's appropriate for you to tell me that I'm nuts for running my computer the way that keeps me comfortable.

It is possible to select an interface in Windows with a large font, but the large font doesn't apply to all aspects of the screen. When using a browser, I can increase the size of fonts via the browser interface, but there are other windows where I can't change it. Besides, I prefer the look of the fonts at the lower resolution, and I have had my word-processing program set up to work at that resolution, so I don't see much reason to change.

You are correct in one respect: I can increase the size of the font in the text screen that I am typing in now via the browser interface.

As for editing pictures, I explained all that in the last post. I do plenty of zooming in and out when editing a picture, but the zoom factor doesn't always coincide with the screen resolution. As I said, at 800 x 600 resolution, I can see defects more clearly.

One more comment: I've just been experimenting with various screen resolutions and interfaces, and one thing that never changes is the size icons, such as program icons and the smiley faces and such.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Mar 13, 2008 11:16 pm 
Caleb Murdock wrote:
I don't think it's appropriate for you to tell me that I'm nuts for running my computer the way that keeps me comfortable.


Hence the smiley face at the end to show my comment was in jest.


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:03 am 
Hey Caleb,

I too am glad you're back and can find this site useful and usable.

Just want to tell you that your explanation of how you work in this resolution sounds very interesting. I will try this myself and see if I can get better results or the same faster, using this method.

This is something I would have never ever thought of, so I'm glad there's an 800X600 user among us who is willing to share some tips!

Cheers :-)


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:08 am 
See here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4019

It's at an odd width, and I'm guessing it's to do with the underscoring that Patti used. Is this a known issue?


Top
  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:14 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:13 am
Posts: 241
Location: RI, USA
I'm not a moderator here, but it's pretty clear that patti's underscore caused it. That kind of thing happens when you have variable-width tables in a forum. Often, a long URL will cause that also.

LahLahSr, thanks for welcoming me back.

I think that a lot of people just use the resolution that their monitor has when they first turn it on, but you can always change it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:49 am 
Offline
Moderator
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 30, 2006 4:30 pm
Posts: 9805
Location: UK
Photoj wrote:
See here:

http://www.cameralabs.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=4019

It's at an odd width, and I'm guessing it's to do with the underscoring that Patti used. Is this a known issue?

It's a known issue when long URLs are used. That's why I favour the more readable [url=..]..[/url] syntax.

Not sure why patti drew that long line (no opportunity given for a word-wrap) but as it breaks the frame I'm about to "undraw" it. :twisted:

Bob.

_________________
Olympus OM-D E-M1 + M.Zuiko Digital ED 12-40mm f/2.8, Lumix 7-14mm f/4, Leica DG Summilux 15mm f/1.7 ASPH, M.Zuiko Digital 45mm 1:1.8, M.Zuiko Digital ED 75mm 1:1.8.
Leica D Vario-Elmar 14mm-150mm f/3.5 - f/5.6 ASPH.
OM-D E-M5, H-PS14042E, Gitzo GT1541T, Arca-Swiss Z1 DP ball-head.
Astrophotography: TEC 140 'scope, FLI ML16803 camera, ASA DDM60 Pro mount.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 14, 2008 1:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:40 am
Posts: 1330
Location: Scotland
Hi Caleb, nice to see you back. Liked the "Republican" comment btw :lol:

Been thinking about your monitor situation. I see where you're coming from as regards your product photography and that's quite valid, imo. Considering the legibility of screen fonts at higher resolutions though, again imo, I find that on small CRT's the refresh rate plays a very large part on what is "comfortable" to the eye. Could it perhaps be that when you turn up your screen resolution this exceeds the maximum refresh rate and so the monitor kicks the refresh rate down to an unacceptable level?

I moved from a 19" Hansol CRT running at 1280x960 to a 22"Samsung widescreen running at 1680x1050 and honestly, the Samsung's the easier read. TFT's obviously have no refresh issues.

If I'm teaching my granny to suck eggs I'm sorry.

Just some thoughts.

Zorro 8)

_________________
http://zorrofox4.deviantart.com/

Image

Various lenses, SB800 & Manfrotto 190 with 460MG head


Last edited by zorro on Fri Mar 14, 2008 2:46 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 38 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All words, images, videos and layout, copyright 2005-2012 Gordon Laing. May not be used without permission.
/ How we test / Best Cameras / Advertising / Camera reviews / Supporting Camera Labs

Webdesign by Alphabase IT
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group