-8

[Glen in Orlando]

[Morgans[_2_]]

I know my view may not be the majority opinion here, but I feel I must
express it, none the less.

I question the inclusion of the picture frame feature in all of this series,
and of any others that use it.

I am sure that it must inflate the size of the download, a little. That is
an issue, but for me with broadband, not much of one. For those with
dial-up, or other small bandwidths, it surely is.

My big hesitation on wanting to see it used is that when the picture appears
in my browser, I now must scroll side to side to see it all (or mostly) at
one time. That would not be necessary without the frames.

So, does anyone else feel the same way, or does everyone like the new
addition?

In the end, it is your choice, Glen, but I thought you might want to know
what others think.

Keep up the good work!
--
Jim in NC

[Dave Kearton[_2_]]

"Morgans" > wrote in message
...
> I know my view may not be the majority opinion here, but I feel I must
> express it, none the less.

> I question the inclusion of the picture frame feature in all of this
> series,
> and of any others that use it.

> I am sure that it must inflate the size of the download, a little. That
> is
> an issue, but for me with broadband, not much of one. For those with
> dial-up, or other small bandwidths, it surely is.

> My big hesitation on wanting to see it used is that when the picture
> appears
> in my browser, I now must scroll side to side to see it all (or mostly) at
> one time. That would not be necessary without the frames.

> So, does anyone else feel the same way, or does everyone like the new
> addition?

> In the end, it is your choice, Glen, but I thought you might want to know
> what others think.

> Keep up the good work!
> --
> Jim in NC




Have to agree, great pics, the frame is pretty - but it doesn't make looking
at the picture any more 'fun' than the picture alone.


For me it's only a minor point and wouldn't mention it unless someone else
did.


--

Cheers

Dave Kearton - sitting on the fence....

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Dave Kearton" > wrote
>
> For me it's only a minor point and wouldn't mention it unless someone else
> did.

Yep, and I'm not usually one to rock the boat, but I did this once, just a
little bit! ;-)

Like you say, it is a little nit, and I will not loose sleep over scrolling,
to see good pictures.
--
Jim in NC

[John Meyer]

In article >,
"Morgans" > wrote:

> I know my view may not be the majority opinion here, but I feel I must
> express it, none the less.
>
> I question the inclusion of the picture frame feature in all of this series,
> and of any others that use it.

I don't care for digital picture frames. They distract from the photo
itself. A print on a wall can be helped by a nice frame, but on a
computer screen it's just extraneous graphics. Sorry Glen!

[Glen in Orlando]

last year I was into my "frame" period with learning how to use more
advanced features of photoshop....
i've pretty much gotten that out of my system these days... unfortunately I
had processed all of these with a frame and was too lazy to reprocess them
out for posting...
Future pics will be sans-frame...
thanks for the feedback..... malcontents!! Grin..

glen in orlando


"John Meyer" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "Morgans" > wrote:
>
>> I know my view may not be the majority opinion here, but I feel I must
>> express it, none the less.
>>
>> I question the inclusion of the picture frame feature in all of this
>> series,
>> and of any others that use it.
>
> I don't care for digital picture frames. They distract from the photo
> itself. A print on a wall can be helped by a nice frame, but on a
> computer screen it's just extraneous graphics. Sorry Glen!