Moose wrote:
[snip]
>
> Marc Lawrence wrote:
>> Sorry, when I say "resize", I mean it seems to compress the image
>> horizontally. Obviously, resizing's no biggie - just thought that
>> compression along a dimension might not present the desired
>> composition.
> I think that is almost certainly your browser. Probably adjustable
> somewhere in preferences where you can choose to have images too big for
> the display area either resized, probably with an option to maintain
> proportions, or displayed full size with scroll bars. Also, if you have
> an info/favorites/etc. bar on the side, you can temporarily close it -
> to give the image room to breathe (chuckle).
>
> It is absolutely dead simple, basic HTML and displays exactly the same
> here, full size, on Firefox, IE and Netscape browsers.
>
> Moose
>
>>> Moose wrote:
>>> With today's mail content, I thought maybe some folks could use this
>>>
>> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Sierras/Siltrees.htm>
>
>
I noted the same resizing as Marc so poked around a bit.
the image
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Sierras/siltrees.jpg
is 840x553 (=~1.5)
whereas the HTML in
http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/MPhotos/Calif/Sierras/Siltrees.htm
<P><CENTER><IMG SRC=siltrees.jpg width=860 height=660></CENTER></P>
calls for it to be displayed at 860x660 (=~1.3)
Weird as I'd assume PS made the html with the typo/altered aspect ratio.
--
Russ Butler (NJ USA)
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|
