11 Jan
2003
11 Jan
'03
12:19 p.m.
On Sat, 2003-01-11 at 21:04, Eric Smith wrote:
Without pointing out specific examples -
1) The size of the pictures are generally too small, sometimes not much
larger than a thumbnail. There should be several sizes available,
including very high resolution shots.
2) The pictures are often out of focus, grainly, or have poor lighting.
3) Labels or markings are often impossible to discern.
The "pictures", as I refer to them, are those generally seen on
classic-computer collection-related web sites. Obviously, there are not
too many of us who moonlight as photographers and I'm not faulting any
individual or collection of photos.
Why I brought this up (possibly in a more negative tone than required),
is that often I'm left wishing that the pictures were better than they
are - the owners have interesting machines, and it would nice to see
higher quality photos that can accentuate details, markings, and
labels.
Jeff
Poor
photographs of computers are a pet peeve of mine. All of the
photos I've seen on the web (with rare exception) are generally lousy.
The photos, IMHO, are just as valuable as having the documentation and
software for any system. It is a useful tool for making comparisons.
Jeff
That all may be true, but it's not very constructive. How about telling
us what people are doing wrong, and suggestions for improvements?