Benttree wrote:
Thank you from your respond, I did just load Mozilla, and tested it mail server. But there is no option to image sizer as used to be with window XP. I did try to send several images total size 39mb and it is to large file for Mozilla . In XP one can reduce multi images with one click, as small, medium, large and original.
The "option" to scale your photos does not exist on a menu. So don't even bother looking for it. The resize window pops up when attaching the photos to an e-mail. If you have installed Thunderbird correctly and made it your default e-mail client, you should go into Windows Explorer, navigate to a sub-directory with your jpgs, Ctrl Click on 2 or 3 jpgs, then right click, look for the "Send To" menu item, click on that, then click on "Mail Receipient". That should do it. If it does not, then you have some other problem that is preventing the resize window from popping up.
Also, the fact that you are having difficulties sending large files has absolutely nothing to do with Thunderbird. It could care less how large an attachment is. Your e-mail provider does however care, ie. Comcast, HotMail, gmail, etc... . Their policies and servers are the ones rejecting your large attachments.
Benttree wrote:
Please help. How can I resize for to mail multiple images in one click as it used to be in window XP.
For " codeplex " resize my Norton gives warning.
To improve your e-mail experience, download and install Mozilla Thunderbird. Then you can do what you are wanting to. When you attach a number of jpgs to an e-mail, Thunderbird will ask what size do you want to make them, small, med, large or leave as it.
OddJobber wrote:
why are you all leaning to your left? Tripod on sloped ground, processing aberation or what?
You need to look closer at the photo. We are standing on ground that is sloped to our right. The right foot is lower than the left. The body is compensating for the effect of gravity on the right side by a natural lean to the left to keep the itself in an upright position. Plus we each have been hiking 18 miles while carrying around 40 lbs on our back. Our shoulders and hips are sore and we are trying to make ourselves as comfortable as possible.
jk48 wrote:
hoping to go there in the Fall and Yellowstone...dragging equipment also...
Good luck! There are many, many different trails to follow in the Tetons. Avoid the easy spots to avoid the crush of humanity that are on these trails, Phelps & Jenny Lake spring to mind. To really get away from it all, the path less taken is far more rewarding!
greymule wrote:
Great Background.
Thank-you. It was a perfect day. The first day it rained most of the day. I will be posting a picture of my sons' shoe that had a an extra pound of mud attached to it!
al davis wrote:
But the father and son time is priceless.
Ain't that the truth! We reminisce about these trips all the time. Gives us common ground to build our relationships on!
You have all seen the picture of the majestic Tetons towering in the background with a cabin that is on the valley floor in the foreground. Well, that is the easy and lazy approach! The right way is to hike for 2 days and 18 miles and get to the base (10,000+ alt) of the Grand Tetons, dragging a D7000 and an 18-200 lens! Then walking out on the 3rd day for a total of 26 miles! Here is one of the photos taken of myself and my boys from our trip last week. This is where the technical climbers would begin to scale the face. I am so tired!
F11, 1/320, ISO 200, 26mm
pw wrote:
Which lens is best for portrait taking--1.8 lens or 1.4? My camera is a Rebel XTi EOS. This would be for home use only, but I want to be able to take good photos. Does the extra money for F 1.4 make a difference?
In my opinion, since it is for home use, save your money and go with the 1.8. As a general rule, the sharpest setting of a lens is usually 2 stops lower than its max. Plus with 1.4, you could focus on the nose, and the eyes and almost guaranteed that the ears will be bokeh'd (new variation of the word) by the very shallow DOF.
dupe4050 wrote:
When you have a 20 minute show the hardest part is to sort thru all you shots to find a few "best" ones. lol
Ain't that the truth!! Unless of course you are taking pictures of fireworks in San Diego!
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2012/07/entire-san-diego-fireworks-show-exploded-in-15-seconds-ruining-show.html
Took a bunch of firework pictures. If anyone is thinking of taking firework pictures, they are not difficult at all once you have the ISO and apeture set. The shutter speed is almost irrelevant because the fireworks provide the only light and thus leaving the shutter open for 1/2 sec or 13 seconds simply records the light currently in the sky.
The first few look like most firework photos. The last 2 I really like because it shows a bit more perspective and is more of a story telling shot. Yes, I know that the middle of the last photo is pretty much blown out, but luckily, that is not the focus of the picture!
rebride wrote:
Can you send a Raw file over the internet? If so how? Can it be uploaded here in UHH?
Sure. Any file can be sent over the internet. It can be sent with an FTP client, email, download link on a web site, however many ways there are to download a file. It is just a file.
Again, sure, you can upload it to UHH. If you want people to be able to view it, then the answer is no. If you want people to be able to just download the actual Raw file, then you can upload to UHH with a download link (click on store original).
Quoting the upload instructions:
If you want to display a picture in your post, then please make sure to use
GIF, JPG, BMP or PNG files.
WVHillbilly wrote:
Great action shots. Love #2 & #3, "dancing on air."
Exciting time. Congratulations !
Thanks. It is hard to get action shots in baseball. I get too involved in the moment that I keep forgetting I have a camera around my neck!