It is time to move on

Largformat wrote:

 > We did the unusual presentation of Mr. Smith's work as an experiment. The vote
 > has been about 50/50. I think next time we will present the text at the end of
 > the article.

I think in general on-line publication is problematic. Instead of
buying a copy I'm forced to pay on a continuous basis for the right
to read something. I can go pull one of my old CC&DT off the shelf
to check something, and I can fax you a copy of a page if I think
it's something you should see. The magazine is long gone, what
would have happened if it were an on-line publication and I wasn't
an active subscriber at the time of its shutdown?

At least I want my copy in hand, paper or electronic.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

In article <3F79DD2C.70605.DeleteThis@rockgarden.net>,
Jan Brittenson <bson.DeleteThis@rockgarden.net> wrote:

 > Largformat wrote:
 >
  > > We did the unusual presentation of Mr. Smith's work as an experiment. The vote
  > > has been about 50/50. I think next time we will present the text at the end of
  > > the article.
 >
 > I think in general on-line publication is problematic. Instead of
 > buying a copy I'm forced to pay on a continuous basis for the right
 > to read something. I can go pull one of my old CC&DT off the shelf
 > to check something, and I can fax you a copy of a page if I think
 > it's something you should see. The magazine is long gone, what
 > would have happened if it were an on-line publication and I wasn't
 > an active subscriber at the time of its shutdown?
 >
 > At least I want my copy in hand, paper or electronic.
 >

And I agree, the best part is I have signed copies where I got
a chance to meet various authors and had them sign thier
particular articles in person.

--


website:
<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank" target="_blank">http://members.bellatlantic.net/~gblank</a><!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

I think in general on-line publication is problematic. Instead of
buying a copy I'm forced to pay on a continuous basis for the right
to read something.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

The Smith supplement is in the free section of the web site

www.viewcamera.com

steve simmons
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

In article <3F7A26C7.6080908.RemoveThis@but.us.chickens>, David Nebenzahl
<nobody.RemoveThis@but.us.chickens> wrote:

 > Care to address the issue of *extremely* poor reproduction of photographs in
 > the article (PDF) on Smith? Seems to me that if you're going to go to the
 > trouble to present any images larger than thumbnails in such an (online)
 > article, you ought to be able to make them of high enough quality so they're
 > believeable. Mind you, I'm not suggesting you make them
super-high-resolution,
 > print-quality images. But surely this is a technical problem that can be
 > solved nowadays.
 >
 > So what do you say about this?

I'm not Steve (duh - and I think he's as glad as I am) but if I may...

I suspect it was not Steve but the web builder who made them too large.
They are perfect as thumbnails. If I had a magazine today, I'd probably
keep them as thumbnails and make no attempt to have larger images because
the medium _is_ paper and should stay that way. The web is for sampling.

Now when we have Internet-2 speeds, and every other person has a huge,
high-rez digital monitor then big images will be very cool but PAPER RULES
nonetheless.

Okay, sorry for interrupting.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

Yes it is.

<a style='text-decoration: underline;' href="http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues03/oct03/indelible.html" target="_blank">http://www.smithsonianmag.si.edu/smithsonian/issues03/oct03/indelible.html</a>

Cathy

Largformat wrote:
  > I am going to withdraw from my dialogue with John Stafford. We have
both gone
  > on far too long with this silliness.
  >
  > We did the unusual presentation of Mr. Smith's work as an experiment.
The vote
  > has been about 50/50. I think next time we will present the text at
the end of
  > the article.
  >
  > steve simmons<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

Care to address the issue of *extremely* poor reproduction of photographs in
the article (PDF) on Smith? Seems to me that if you're going to go to the
trouble to present any images larger than thumbnails in such an (online)
article, you ought to be able to make them of high enough quality so they're
believeable. Mind you, I'm not suggesting you make them super-high-resolution,
print-quality images. But surely this is a technical problem that can be
solved nowadays.

So what do you say about this?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

We made the pdf's low res so people could download them more quickly. If we
make them higher res they take longer to download. Some people will not be
happy either way.

steve simmons
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

In article <20030930215033.04954.00000099.DeleteThis@mb-m17.aol.com>,
largformat.DeleteThis@aol.com (Largformat) wrote:

 >[... Steve was replying to complaint regarding large, low-rez web images...]

 > We made the pdf's low res so people could download them more quickly. If we
 > make them higher res they take longer to download. Some people will not be
 > happy either way.

Steve, it's just a technical web (or PDF) issue. Specifically the file:
VC91-RLSmith-web.pdf

The complaint was that the physical size (inch x inch) size was too large
for the 'resolution' made of the image; or put in our venacular: copied LF
print to Minox, then blown up again from the Minox format. All fidelity is
lost that way. They should have been left small or the larger ones made
from larger original scans.

IMHO, the web creator screwed up or was directed to a bad decsion.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

On 9/30/2003 6:50 PM Largformat spake thus:

[gotta do something about that weird quoting style still]

 > Care to address the issue of *extremely* poor reproduction of photographs in
 > the article (PDF) on Smith? Seems to me that if you're going to go to the
 > trouble to present any images larger than thumbnails in such an (online)
 > article, you ought to be able to make them of high enough quality so they're
 > believeable. Mind you, I'm not suggesting you make them super-high-resolution,
 > print-quality images. But surely this is a technical problem that can be
 > solved nowadays.
 >
 > So what do you say about this?>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 > We made the pdf's low res so people could download them more quickly. If we
 > make them higher res they take longer to download. Some people will not be
 > happy either way.

OK, makes sense.

Just a suggestion, though: for those who want better than the crummy images,
you might think about providing higher-res (and therefore larger and longer to
download) images in addition to the low-res ones (in a separate page or
document). If you warn people beforehand, they tend not to complain if they
want the better images.


--
CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED

Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on
Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

IMHO, the web creator screwed up or was directed to a bad
decsion.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

No one made a mistake. I explained what happened. It was thought out ahead of
time and a conscious decision was made.

Please re-read my complete explanation.

and

Please stop posting that we made a mistake when you don't have a clue as to
anything we do. If you are not going to take the time, and have the integrity,
to do your homework then stay quiet on a subject.

steve simmons
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

Just a suggestion, though: for those who want better than the crummy images,
you might think about providing higher-res (and therefore larger and longer to
download) images in addition to the low-res ones (in a separate page or
document). If you warn people beforehand, they tend not to complain if they
want the better images.
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Ok, let me see if I can get this figured out. It is not enough that we do two
very good magazines. Then, we supplement the content of each issue with more
material on the web. Now, we should do two versions of the supplemental
material on the web for people who want to download quickly (or are on a dial
up modem - as we are because no DSL line is available to us) and a higher res
version for those who want more quality. Of course, this is to go on the free
section of the web site so that people who borrow copies from friends can get
it for free as they do the magazine.

So, at what point are we allowed to have a life beyond doing all of this
supplemental material and how do we pay for food and shelter while doing all
this free work for people who get their copies free?

Mr. Stafford is very good at telling us what to do, telling us publically about
mistakes we've made, and making suggestions for us to do more work. If only he
were half as good at following through on his public pronouncements of working
with us.

steve simmons<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

On 9/30/2003 9:38 PM CamArtsMag spake thus:

 > Just a suggestion, though: for those who want better than the crummy images,
 > you might think about providing higher-res (and therefore larger and longer to
 > download) images in addition to the low-res ones (in a separate page or
 > document). If you warn people beforehand, they tend not to complain if they
 > want the better images.
   >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 > Ok, let me see if I can get this figured out. It is not enough that we do two
 > very good magazines. Then, we supplement the content of each issue with more
 > material on the web. Now, we should do two versions of the supplemental
 > material on the web for people who want to download quickly (or are on a dial
 > up modem - as we are because no DSL line is available to us) and a higher res
 > version for those who want more quality. Of course, this is to go on the free
 > section of the web site so that people who borrow copies from friends can get
 > it for free as they do the magazine.
 >
 > So, at what point are we allowed to have a life beyond doing all of this
 > supplemental material and how do we pay for food and shelter while doing all
 > this free work for people who get their copies free?

If you go back and re-read my message, you'd see that I politely prefaced my
suggestion with "Just a suggestion". It was *just a suggestion*. I was trying
to be nice to you. I see now that that was an exercise in futility. So fuck
you and your idiotic posting style, asshole. Back to the war!

 > Mr. Stafford is very good at telling us what to do, telling us publically about
 > mistakes we've made, and making suggestions for us to do more work. If only he
 > were half as good at following through on his public pronouncements of working
 > with us.

You're addressing me but talking about "Mr. Stafford"? What do you think we
are, a comedy duo? a law firm? This is *me* talking to you, not him. He's a
big boy who can speak for himself.


--
CALIFORNIA EARTHQUAKE PREDICTED

Seismologists are predicting a major earthquake will occur sometime on
Tuesday, Oct. 7. Epicenter: Sacramento. Magnitude: unknown.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

In article <20031001002709.17505.00000074.RemoveThis@mb-m16.aol.com>,
largformat.RemoveThis@aol.com (Largformat) wrote:

 > IMHO, the web creator screwed up or was directed to a bad
 > decsion.>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 > No one made a mistake. I explained what happened. It was thought out ahead of
 > time and a conscious decision was made.
 >
 > Please re-read my complete explanation.

Okay, that's the first I've seen of such information.

 > and
 >
 > Please stop posting that we made a mistake when you don't have a clue as to
 > anything we do. If you are not going to take the time, and have the integrity,
 > to do your homework then stay quiet on a subject.

Note how Simmons immediately takes a benign suggestion and advice and
portrays it as an attack and then attacks the poster.

Okay, now that the safteys are off - you screwed up! Get professional
help and listen to it! Your pride and steamroller style is showing, and
your net-effort looks very bad. VERY BAD! It's totally embarassing. If you
submitted the PDF in question to fulfull a freshman photographics 101
project you would fail and you will continue to fail if you presume that
every comment is an attack and retalliate with innuendo and accusations
against helpful suggestions.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on 

In article <20031001003834.04998.00000090.DeleteThis@mb-m18.aol.com>,
camartsmag.DeleteThis@aol.com (CamArtsMag) wrote:

 > Just a suggestion, though: for those who want better than the crummy images,
 > you might think about providing higher-res (and therefore larger and
longer to
 > download) images in addition to the low-res ones (in a separate page or
 > document). If you warn people beforehand, they tend not to complain if they
 > want the better images.
   > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
 >
 > Ok, let me see if I can get this figured out. It is not enough that we do two
 > very good magazines. Then, we supplement the content of each issue with more
 > material on the web. Now, we should do two versions of the supplemental
 > material on the web for people who want to download quickly (or are on a dial
 > up modem - as we are because no DSL line is available to us) and a higher res
 > version for those who want more quality. Of course, this is to go on the free
 > section of the web site so that people who borrow copies from friends can get
 > it for free as they do the magazine.

No. You should cease all web efforts. Be a master of what you already do
well: PRINT. Stick to it in part because you can't find your ass with a
floodlight on the net. Keep your niche.

 > So, at what point are we allowed to have a life beyond doing all of this
 > supplemental material and how do we pay for food and shelter while doing all
 > this free work for people who get their copies free?


 > Mr. Stafford is very good at telling us what to do, telling us
publically about
 > mistakes we've made, and making suggestions for us to do more work.

Others have made more suggestions than I have, but you rail against me.
Interesting. Very interesting. And I never suggested you "do more work"
but to do the work you did properly. Leave it to a professional.

 >If only he
 > were half as good at following through on his public pronouncements of working
 > with us.

That was your failing. You (or whoever you contracted, perhaps our
pseudoperson Greg what's-his-name) never contacted me. You know there IS a
way to send mail to me and get a receipt if it's received!

I spent time with one of your published contributors and it was a a hugely
gratifying effort. I shall continue working for photographers, and _other_
publishers because, frankly, they are not the pain in the ass you are.
Life is too short to spend with a miserable son-of-a-bitch like you.<!-- ~MESSAGE_AFTER~ -->
 >> Stay informed about: It is time to move on