I agree, Moose: the cost element is incidental, but it’s worth considering if
you have an iCloud account because it’s so much more expensive than Google
Photos. That is, it’s worth considering that element if you have “scads of
unused web space” as I have as well.
It was probably me complaining about the forward and back in a gallery, perhaps
because the forward and back buttons don’t appear when viewing on a smaller
screen like my MacBook Air. Now that I have a MacBook (Retina screen, loads
more dots) the problem doesn’t recur.
But then my showing of photos on the WordPress blog suffers from the problem
that you (and others) have highlighted – that the full-size image is not
available in a navigable form. My solution will have to be to change the theme
to one that allows viewing larger images in line with the text. I’m getting
there only slowly because life is busy at the moment. It’s sufficient for me
that I have an incentive to take photos several times a week, different photos
from those that I have taken before for fear of boring the viewer.
The charcoal drawing (?) is interesting enough, but the leaf still strikes me
as excellent, Dalíesque, perhaps.
Chris
> On 18 Apr 2017, at 22:45, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
>> Thanks, Moose.
>>
>> I know that Google Photos is a way of storing and displaying photos that is
>> more cost-effective than iCloud (which is what I use),
>
> Cost had nothing to do with it. Really, I didn't even think of that until you
> mentioned it. I have scads of unused web space. It's about 'thumb'
> size/presentation and especially about how it works on mobile devices.
>
> It's in a way like web galleries vs. books. I hand someone a physical book,
> and they look at and engage with the images. I send them a link to a web
> gallery with the same images and they mostly don't. I know, because I've
> handed books of the same images and it's like they are seeing them for the
> first time. I suspect that's largely true - that they got bored with them in
> the gallery and didn't go through them all.
>
> Many people are used to relating to images in the way they are presented in
> the photo apps on their mobile devices, where the images always fill the
> screen in at least one direction, they can finger swipe through them, use two
> fingers to zoom in, etc. They visit and show us where they've been, what's
> happening to family, mutual friends, etc. with images on their phones/tablets.
>
> The Google apps fit seamlessly into this way of engaging with images for them.
>
> On this very forum, I recall someone saying they couldn't navigate my
> MooseFoto site galleries, because they couldn't figure out how to go forward
> and back through the images. This on a site where there are 'Forward' and
> 'Back' buttons on each page, small thumbnails for the last and next few
> images to click on and clicking on the left or right of the image goes back
> or forward. I imagine them sliding their fingers across the images . . .
>
> I'm not trying to change your mind and way of doing things, just sharing my
> own experiences.
>
>> but I like the idea of WordPress and its flexibility – I’ll persevere for
>> the moment.
>
> I wish you the best of luck with finding the right combo.
>
> Apropos what I said above, I hate to admit it, but I don't look at all your
> images full size. Is it just laziness, click, click again to go back, click
> on the next one, repeat? Or is it also something more subtle, a break out of
> the flow of the images? Dunno, just pondering.
>
> For now, it's a battle I avoid. It literally takes a couple of seconds to
> drag new images over into Google and family and friends who didn't look at my
> conventional browser based galleries look at the images on Google. No, I
> don't like the inability to order, annotate, etc. but huge time and
> frustration savings, combined with better viewing outcomes, has won me over -
> for now.
>
> More confession; I have a personal bias that any image worth it's salt should
> be able to stand on its own, sans explication of subject, context, etc. Not
> that the words may not add something, sometimes a great deal, but that an
> image that doesn't work without them might as well stay home. OTOH, they may
> detract. When I show this image, most people are intrigued, imagine it to be
> a photograph something other than what it is, rather than an image I have
> found/created, on its own.
> <https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOCaMKlf8nhaRj-PRdOCc1Ht92GhBb7HFYQh2EddNhfbRccyzaYatgYnNj-cqoVfA/photo/AF1QipObeL21jPnP1aFJnCad7RmhU1ntE-WrzVltGmiz?key=ekdLVEUyZ3loLWt3YjhLcF9ZM3k1OV9iWFYzQ2ZB
>
> <https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOCaMKlf8nhaRj-PRdOCc1Ht92GhBb7HFYQh2EddNhfbRccyzaYatgYnNj-cqoVfA/photo/AF1QipObeL21jPnP1aFJnCad7RmhU1ntE-WrzVltGmiz?key=ekdLVEUyZ3loLWt3YjhLcF9ZM3k1OV9iWFYzQ2ZB>>
> When informed of the physical original subject, a few people have
> immediately lost interest/engagement with it.
>
> Another that tends to really grab viewers, and seems to lose its magic when
> explained.
> <https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOCaMKlf8nhaRj-PRdOCc1Ht92GhBb7HFYQh2EddNhfbRccyzaYatgYnNj-cqoVfA/photo/AF1QipO2tEiIELsLNYVOppV6LUQZdTMnuJ1pyYHIOAST?key=ekdLVEUyZ3loLWt3YjhLcF9ZM3k1OV9iWFYzQ2ZB
>
> <https://photos.google.com/share/AF1QipOCaMKlf8nhaRj-PRdOCc1Ht92GhBb7HFYQh2EddNhfbRccyzaYatgYnNj-cqoVfA/photo/AF1QipO2tEiIELsLNYVOppV6LUQZdTMnuJ1pyYHIOAST?key=ekdLVEUyZ3loLWt3YjhLcF9ZM3k1OV9iWFYzQ2ZB>>
>
>> We had no Angst on that Urban expedition: it was a gorgeous day, the breeze
>> diluted the much-discussed pollution and all we saw were enjoying the
>> company of others.
>
> It was something about the images of endless gray city from above made me
> happy in that moment to be only looking.
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|