13 New Messages
Digest #9073
Messages
Sun Aug 19, 2012 8:44 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
Howdy.
PNG (Portable Network Graphics) was intended to be a sort of
replacement for images that are used in some manner via the Internet.
PNG was also intended to serve as a replacement for the much older GIF
format that required a license to use legally and which had some severe
restrictions. GIF elements had been patented by Unisys and this is why
in programs like Photoshop the term GIF is not used.
A JPEG image can have a color space associated with it such as the sRGB
color space while a GIF can't have a color space associated.
The GIF format is limited to only 256 colors (can't have more than
that) but a GIF file can also have a transparent background and a JPEG
file can't have a transparent background. On the other hand, a GIF file
can be reduced to only two colors, for example, just black and white
only, and this reduces the file size a lot which makes it ideal for
simple line art for web sites that are in very small file sizes to make
downloading/display of web sites go a lot faster.
A PNG file can have millions of colors and can also have a transparent
background. PNGs cal also store metadata, gamma values, and ICC color
space profile info.
PNG files are compressed but not in a lossy manner as is a JPEG file.
Denver Dan
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:12:12 +0200, Oneal Neumann wrote:
> On a whim, I converted (using Preview) a JPG file that I had pulled
> from Wikipedia to a PNG file. A side-by-side comparison of the two
> pictures showed no difference. The PNG file size was about fivefold
> greater than that of the JPG file.
>
> Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Network_Graphics some image
> degradation occurs using JPEGs. This is due to lossy encoding.
>
> My thought is that there is no plus in converting a JPG to a PNG
> because the conversion process can not (it seems to me) improve the
> original file. That said, something must have happened to have
> created a five-times-larger file. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
>
> Interestingly, my camera takes JPGs and my laptop takes PNGs for its
> screensnaps. The latter ones that I end up keeping I retain in the
> PNG format. If I send any via email, I still use the PNG format as
> most emails can handle the extra weight.
>
> Oneal
PNG (Portable Network Graphics) was intended to be a sort of
replacement for images that are used in some manner via the Internet.
PNG was also intended to serve as a replacement for the much older GIF
format that required a license to use legally and which had some severe
restrictions. GIF elements had been patented by Unisys and this is why
in programs like Photoshop the term GIF is not used.
A JPEG image can have a color space associated with it such as the sRGB
color space while a GIF can't have a color space associated.
The GIF format is limited to only 256 colors (can't have more than
that) but a GIF file can also have a transparent background and a JPEG
file can't have a transparent background. On the other hand, a GIF file
can be reduced to only two colors, for example, just black and white
only, and this reduces the file size a lot which makes it ideal for
simple line art for web sites that are in very small file sizes to make
downloading/
A PNG file can have millions of colors and can also have a transparent
background. PNGs cal also store metadata, gamma values, and ICC color
space profile info.
PNG files are compressed but not in a lossy manner as is a JPEG file.
Denver Dan
On Sun, 19 Aug 2012 12:12:12 +0200, Oneal Neumann wrote:
> On a whim, I converted (using Preview) a JPG file that I had pulled
> from Wikipedia to a PNG file. A side-by-side comparison of the two
> pictures showed no difference. The PNG file size was about fivefold
> greater than that of the JPG file.
>
> Per http://en.wikipedia
> degradation occurs using JPEGs. This is due to lossy encoding.
>
> My thought is that there is no plus in converting a JPG to a PNG
> because the conversion process can not (it seems to me) improve the
> original file. That said, something must have happened to have
> created a five-times-larger file. Perhaps I'm mistaken.
>
> Interestingly, my camera takes JPGs and my laptop takes PNGs for its
> screensnaps. The latter ones that I end up keeping I retain in the
> PNG format. If I send any via email, I still use the PNG format as
> most emails can handle the extra weight.
>
> Oneal
Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:05 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Budd T" n7eoj
The better test comparison would be to convert a PNG original to JPEG.
Converting from JPEG can only use the lossy JPEG to work with.
--- In macsupportcentral@yahoogroups.com , Oneal Neumann <wardell.h.s@...> wrote:
>
>
> On a whim, I converted (using Preview) a JPG file that I had pulled from Wikipedia to a PNG file. A side-by-side comparison of the two pictures showed no difference. The PNG file size was about fivefold greater than that of the JPG file.
<snip>
Converting from JPEG can only use the lossy JPEG to work with.
--- In macsupportcentral@
>
>
> On a whim, I converted (using Preview) a JPG file that I had pulled from Wikipedia to a PNG file. A side-by-side comparison of the two pictures showed no difference. The PNG file size was about fivefold greater than that of the JPG file.
<snip>
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:45 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"John Engberg" mrmacbyte
On Aug 19, 2012, at 10:40 AM, Dane Robison <macdane@mac.
> Anyone know how to tweak OS X (Lion) to save screen captures in a JPEG format instead?
>
> Thanks,
> Dane
>
You can do it in Terminal, but Tinker Tool (General Tab) will do it for you without using terminal, as well as Onyx (Parameters Tab). Both of these utilities are free. There probably are other apps out there that will accomplish that task, as well.
John Engberg
Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:30 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Jim Saklad" jimdoc01
> Decided to Google it and found it's pretty easy, using either the Secrets pref pane
Does the Pref Pane work in Lion or Mountain Lion?
I see that it was updated almost 3 years ago for Snow Leopard.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Does the Pref Pane work in Lion or Mountain Lion?
I see that it was updated almost 3 years ago for Snow Leopard.
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~
Jim Saklad mailto:jimdoc@me.com
Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:07 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Dane Robison" macdane1
On Aug 19, 2012, at 4:30 PM, Jim Saklad wrote:
>> Decided to Google it and found it's pretty easy, using either the Secrets pref pane
>
> Does the Pref Pane work in Lion or Mountain Lion?
> I see that it was updated almost 3 years ago for Snow Leopard.
I'm using it in Lion (10.7.4) with no problems I can see.
Dane
>> Decided to Google it and found it's pretty easy, using either the Secrets pref pane
>
> Does the Pref Pane work in Lion or Mountain Lion?
> I see that it was updated almost 3 years ago for Snow Leopard.
I'm using it in Lion (10.7.4) with no problems I can see.
Dane
Sun Aug 19, 2012 12:49 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"bj" jblair44
I'm not quite sure which message/group/thread prompted this, or why you sent
it privately, but thought others might like to know what you had to say,
maybe even be interested in my response to it.
If you don't like Apple's way of things, then don't buy any more -- as you
say you plan about future purchases.
I've never expected tech-stuff that's even only a few years old to run the
latest & greatest -- and this "problem" you have with it is not limited to
Apple or even the 21st century. The products you call "obselete" haven't
suddenly stopped doing what they were doing, have they? Do they no longer
work as you expected them to when you bought them? My old iPods still work
just fine doing what I got them for, even the ones that don't even run iOS;
one doesn't go beyond iOS4 but still does all of what it started out doing
with no problem.
I'm glad you're happy with Windows 8 -- I'll wait quite a long time before
trying it out, as I did with Windows 7 -- having been snake-bit (along with
hordes of others) by Vista. Whether or not W8 blows other systems out of the
water, or sends users gasping for air when the masses start trying to use it
is yet to be seen. Demos, betas, early testers are not the "common user" who
will have troubles the developers & early-adopter-techies never thought of.
Nor are they the people who are actually *doing work* with the systems and
getting seriously aggravated at the "why the *HELL* did they change this?"
changes that make no sense. Good way to sell more How To books and training
courses, though.
I don't have an overall problem with iTunes -- it was the migration that
gave me grief and others have pointed out where/why I may have gone wrong on
my expectations. iTunes isn't perfect by any means -- I've never met any
software that is -- and certainly it could use some tweaking -- but it does
what I want it to do well enough without making me use a multitude of other
programs and stitch the whole system together.
I hope you'll be as happy with your Android (though needing better apps) as
you expect to be and it doesn't give you any problems. "Just need better
apps" seems like a pretty big hole in the system to me; not sure what you
mean by "works better" though.
bj
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:12 PM
To: bjones44@verizon.net
Subject: Mac experience
So sorry you had a bad experience, but, look at it this way, you probably
got off easy. There are many dark and expensive sides to Apple that you have
been spared. Most Apple fans don't like to admit the many fallacies of
Apple. Two year old MBA's that can't run ML, late iPhones and Touch that
can't run iOS 5 or maybe even 4. Mirroring only supported on latest models.
Laptops that cost up to $1000 to have a battery replaced. MacBooks and iPads
that can't be serviced except by Apple. Laptops that don't get SATA updates.
Laptops that can't have memory or HD replaced. Apple expects you to just buy
a new iDevice.
I have 5 Apple products all less than four years old that are obsolete.
Well over $5000. My 8 year old HP runs Win8 just fine.
And then we get into the Apple ecosystem which exists to make you buy more
Apple products. All this instead of embracing industry standards such as
DLNA and WIDI.
I could go on and talk about crappy Apple software, but you found out about
one - iTunes. BTW, third party Apple software is usually much more expensive
than its Win counterpart, if there is even similar Apple software.
Yes, I still love my "old" Apple products, but I won't be purchasing any
more. This iPad will be the last. Android works so much better, they just
need better apps. But, Win8 tablets will blow them both out of the water.
Bob
it privately, but thought others might like to know what you had to say,
maybe even be interested in my response to it.
If you don't like Apple's way of things, then don't buy any more -- as you
say you plan about future purchases.
I've never expected tech-stuff that's even only a few years old to run the
latest & greatest -- and this "problem" you have with it is not limited to
Apple or even the 21st century. The products you call "obselete" haven't
suddenly stopped doing what they were doing, have they? Do they no longer
work as you expected them to when you bought them? My old iPods still work
just fine doing what I got them for, even the ones that don't even run iOS;
one doesn't go beyond iOS4 but still does all of what it started out doing
with no problem.
I'm glad you're happy with Windows 8 -- I'll wait quite a long time before
trying it out, as I did with Windows 7 -- having been snake-bit (along with
hordes of others) by Vista. Whether or not W8 blows other systems out of the
water, or sends users gasping for air when the masses start trying to use it
is yet to be seen. Demos, betas, early testers are not the "common user" who
will have troubles the developers & early-adopter-
Nor are they the people who are actually *doing work* with the systems and
getting seriously aggravated at the "why the *HELL* did they change this?"
changes that make no sense. Good way to sell more How To books and training
courses, though.
I don't have an overall problem with iTunes -- it was the migration that
gave me grief and others have pointed out where/why I may have gone wrong on
my expectations. iTunes isn't perfect by any means -- I've never met any
software that is -- and certainly it could use some tweaking -- but it does
what I want it to do well enough without making me use a multitude of other
programs and stitch the whole system together.
I hope you'll be as happy with your Android (though needing better apps) as
you expect to be and it doesn't give you any problems. "Just need better
apps" seems like a pretty big hole in the system to me; not sure what you
mean by "works better" though.
bj
-----Original Message-----
From: Bob Cook
Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:12 PM
To: bjones44@verizon.
Subject: Mac experience
So sorry you had a bad experience, but, look at it this way, you probably
got off easy. There are many dark and expensive sides to Apple that you have
been spared. Most Apple fans don't like to admit the many fallacies of
Apple. Two year old MBA's that can't run ML, late iPhones and Touch that
can't run iOS 5 or maybe even 4. Mirroring only supported on latest models.
Laptops that cost up to $1000 to have a battery replaced. MacBooks and iPads
that can't be serviced except by Apple. Laptops that don't get SATA updates.
Laptops that can't have memory or HD replaced. Apple expects you to just buy
a new iDevice.
I have 5 Apple products all less than four years old that are obsolete.
Well over $5000. My 8 year old HP runs Win8 just fine.
And then we get into the Apple ecosystem which exists to make you buy more
Apple products. All this instead of embracing industry standards such as
DLNA and WIDI.
I could go on and talk about crappy Apple software, but you found out about
one - iTunes. BTW, third party Apple software is usually much more expensive
than its Win counterpart, if there is even similar Apple software.
Yes, I still love my "old" Apple products, but I won't be purchasing any
more. This iPad will be the last. Android works so much better, they just
need better apps. But, Win8 tablets will blow them both out of the water.
Bob
Sun Aug 19, 2012 1:17 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"keith_w" keith9600
I have no objection to what you have said here, but I do suggest to you
that when a person sends a message to you PRIVATELY you honor that option,
and if you think the sender might not mind your making it PUBLIC, then for
Pete's sake, ASK HIM first! Get his permission to show it to the world.
That's just common decency.
keith whaley
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:49 PM, bj <bjones44@verizon.net > wrote:
> **
>
>
> I'm not quite sure which message/group/thread prompted this, or why you
> sent
> it privately, but thought others might like to know what you had to say,
> maybe even be interested in my response to it.
>
> If you don't like Apple's way of things, then don't buy any more -- as you
> say you plan about future purchases.
>
> I've never expected tech-stuff that's even only a few years old to run the
> latest & greatest -- and this "problem" you have with it is not limited to
> Apple or even the 21st century. The products you call "obselete" haven't
> suddenly stopped doing what they were doing, have they? Do they no longer
> work as you expected them to when you bought them? My old iPods still work
> just fine doing what I got them for, even the ones that don't even run iOS;
> one doesn't go beyond iOS4 but still does all of what it started out doing
> with no problem.
>
> I'm glad you're happy with Windows 8 -- I'll wait quite a long time before
> trying it out, as I did with Windows 7 -- having been snake-bit (along with
> hordes of others) by Vista. Whether or not W8 blows other systems out of
> the
> water, or sends users gasping for air when the masses start trying to use
> it
> is yet to be seen. Demos, betas, early testers are not the "common user"
> who
> will have troubles the developers & early-adopter-techies never thought of.
> Nor are they the people who are actually *doing work* with the systems and
> getting seriously aggravated at the "why the *HELL* did they change this?"
> changes that make no sense. Good way to sell more How To books and training
> courses, though.
>
> I don't have an overall problem with iTunes -- it was the migration that
> gave me grief and others have pointed out where/why I may have gone wrong
> on
> my expectations. iTunes isn't perfect by any means -- I've never met any
> software that is -- and certainly it could use some tweaking -- but it does
> what I want it to do well enough without making me use a multitude of other
> programs and stitch the whole system together.
>
> I hope you'll be as happy with your Android (though needing better apps) as
> you expect to be and it doesn't give you any problems. "Just need better
> apps" seems like a pretty big hole in the system to me; not sure what you
> mean by "works better" though.
> bj
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Cook
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:12 PM
> To: bjones44@verizon.net
> Subject: Mac experience
>
> So sorry you had a bad experience, but, look at it this way, you probably
> got off easy. There are many dark and expensive sides to Apple that you
> have
> been spared. Most Apple fans don't like to admit the many fallacies of
> Apple. Two year old MBA's that can't run ML, late iPhones and Touch that
> can't run iOS 5 or maybe even 4. Mirroring only supported on latest models.
> Laptops that cost up to $1000 to have a battery replaced. MacBooks and
> iPads
> that can't be serviced except by Apple. Laptops that don't get SATA
> updates.
> Laptops that can't have memory or HD replaced. Apple expects you to just
> buy
> a new iDevice.
>
> I have 5 Apple products all less than four years old that are obsolete.
> Well over $5000. My 8 year old HP runs Win8 just fine.
>
> And then we get into the Apple ecosystem which exists to make you buy more
> Apple products. All this instead of embracing industry standards such as
> DLNA and WIDI.
>
> I could go on and talk about crappy Apple software, but you found out about
> one - iTunes. BTW, third party Apple software is usually much more
> expensive
> than its Win counterpart, if there is even similar Apple software.
>
> Yes, I still love my "old" Apple products, but I won't be purchasing any
> more. This iPad will be the last. Android works so much better, they just
> need better apps. But, Win8 tablets will blow them both out of the water.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
that when a person sends a message to you PRIVATELY you honor that option,
and if you think the sender might not mind your making it PUBLIC, then for
Pete's sake, ASK HIM first! Get his permission to show it to the world.
That's just common decency.
keith whaley
On Sun, Aug 19, 2012 at 12:49 PM, bj <bjones44@verizon.
> **
>
>
> I'm not quite sure which message/group/
> sent
> it privately, but thought others might like to know what you had to say,
> maybe even be interested in my response to it.
>
> If you don't like Apple's way of things, then don't buy any more -- as you
> say you plan about future purchases.
>
> I've never expected tech-stuff that's even only a few years old to run the
> latest & greatest -- and this "problem" you have with it is not limited to
> Apple or even the 21st century. The products you call "obselete" haven't
> suddenly stopped doing what they were doing, have they? Do they no longer
> work as you expected them to when you bought them? My old iPods still work
> just fine doing what I got them for, even the ones that don't even run iOS;
> one doesn't go beyond iOS4 but still does all of what it started out doing
> with no problem.
>
> I'm glad you're happy with Windows 8 -- I'll wait quite a long time before
> trying it out, as I did with Windows 7 -- having been snake-bit (along with
> hordes of others) by Vista. Whether or not W8 blows other systems out of
> the
> water, or sends users gasping for air when the masses start trying to use
> it
> is yet to be seen. Demos, betas, early testers are not the "common user"
> who
> will have troubles the developers & early-adopter-
> Nor are they the people who are actually *doing work* with the systems and
> getting seriously aggravated at the "why the *HELL* did they change this?"
> changes that make no sense. Good way to sell more How To books and training
> courses, though.
>
> I don't have an overall problem with iTunes -- it was the migration that
> gave me grief and others have pointed out where/why I may have gone wrong
> on
> my expectations. iTunes isn't perfect by any means -- I've never met any
> software that is -- and certainly it could use some tweaking -- but it does
> what I want it to do well enough without making me use a multitude of other
> programs and stitch the whole system together.
>
> I hope you'll be as happy with your Android (though needing better apps) as
> you expect to be and it doesn't give you any problems. "Just need better
> apps" seems like a pretty big hole in the system to me; not sure what you
> mean by "works better" though.
> bj
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bob Cook
> Sent: Tuesday, August 14, 2012 10:12 PM
> To: bjones44@verizon.
> Subject: Mac experience
>
> So sorry you had a bad experience, but, look at it this way, you probably
> got off easy. There are many dark and expensive sides to Apple that you
> have
> been spared. Most Apple fans don't like to admit the many fallacies of
> Apple. Two year old MBA's that can't run ML, late iPhones and Touch that
> can't run iOS 5 or maybe even 4. Mirroring only supported on latest models.
> Laptops that cost up to $1000 to have a battery replaced. MacBooks and
> iPads
> that can't be serviced except by Apple. Laptops that don't get SATA
> updates.
> Laptops that can't have memory or HD replaced. Apple expects you to just
> buy
> a new iDevice.
>
> I have 5 Apple products all less than four years old that are obsolete.
> Well over $5000. My 8 year old HP runs Win8 just fine.
>
> And then we get into the Apple ecosystem which exists to make you buy more
> Apple products. All this instead of embracing industry standards such as
> DLNA and WIDI.
>
> I could go on and talk about crappy Apple software, but you found out about
> one - iTunes. BTW, third party Apple software is usually much more
> expensive
> than its Win counterpart, if there is even similar Apple software.
>
> Yes, I still love my "old" Apple products, but I won't be purchasing any
> more. This iPad will be the last. Android works so much better, they just
> need better apps. But, Win8 tablets will blow them both out of the water.
>
> Bob
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Sun Aug 19, 2012 3:51 pm (PDT) . Posted by:
"Denver Dan" denverdan22180
The link works fine in the original email that I received.
Try this:
<http://www.linuxfoundation.org/collaborate/workgroups/openprinting/macosxsamsung-gdi >
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:44:50 -0400, Denver Dan wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> A friend in Denver has a Samsung ML-1710 printer which was no longer
> supported in OS X when he upgraded to Snow Leopard some time ago on his
> MacPro.
>
> He found a fix and sent me this information.
>
> Hopefully others may find these links useful for printers that haven't
> had upgraded drivers provided by their makers.
>
> There are 3 freeware items at this site that allowed the Samsung
> printer to work:
>
> <http://www.linuxfoundation.org/colla...osxsamsung-gdi >
>
> It looks like it could get an older Samsung printer up to Mac OS X 10.7
> Lion.
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Try this:
<http://www.linuxfou
On Sat, 18 Aug 2012 10:44:50 -0400, Denver Dan wrote:
> Howdy.
>
> A friend in Denver has a Samsung ML-1710 printer which was no longer
> supported in OS X when he upgraded to Snow Leopard some time ago on his
> MacPro.
>
> He found a fix and sent me this information.
>
> Hopefully others may find these links useful for printers that haven't
> had upgraded drivers provided by their makers.
>
> There are 3 freeware items at this site that allowed the Samsung
> printer to work:
>
> <http://www.linuxfou
>
> It looks like it could get an older Samsung printer up to Mac OS X 10.7
> Lion.
>
> Denver Dan
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Mon Aug 20, 2012 6:08 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"T Hopkins" todhop
Many models have auto document feeders, especially in the "all-in-one" print/scan/fax lines where this is a necessary feature for serious use. Be careful though. 6x4 is a small document size and many feeders can't handle docs smaller than a certain size. Min size should be in the specs. Also, if these are prints, you'll want something you can trust not to bend or scratch, and that can feed heavier stocks. Some are not built to handle heavier weights. This can be a bit difficult to research.
If you want something dedicated to mass scanning and gentle on documents, you might want a straight-feed scanner. These are generally marketed for OCR work, whereas flatbeds are generally preferred for graphics work.
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-hillmanncarr.com
On Aug 18, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one time.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 7:02 AM, OBrien <bco@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:38:10 -0700, Marc Reavis wrote:
> > > Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
> >
> > Most flatbed scanners include holders for film of various sizes. When you insert the holder, it causes the scanner to direct light from above, and through the film. Look at the specs for whatever scanner to determine what size holders are included.
> >
> > Flatbed scanners do a +very+ good job of scanning film/transparencies.
> >
> >
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >
> > O'Brien â€"â€"â€" â€"... .-. .. . -.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
If you want something dedicated to mass scanning and gentle on documents, you might want a straight-feed scanner. These are generally marketed for OCR work, whereas flatbeds are generally preferred for graphics work.
Cheers,
tod
Tod Hopkins
Hillmann & Carr Inc.
todhopkins-at-
On Aug 18, 2012, at 7:25 AM, Tauqir Rana MD wrote:
> Can some body suggest a scanner which can batch scan 10-15 6x4 at one time.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Aug 18, 2012, at 7:02 AM, OBrien <bco@hiwaay.net> wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:38:10 -0700, Marc Reavis wrote:
> > > Are there scanners for large-format negatives, e.g. 4x5?
> >
> > Most flatbed scanners include holders for film of various sizes. When you insert the holder, it causes the scanner to direct light from above, and through the film. Look at the specs for whatever scanner to determine what size holders are included.
> >
> > Flatbed scanners do a +very+ good job of scanning film/transparencies
> >
> >
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> >
> > O'Brien â€"â€"â€" â€"... .-. .. . -.
> >
> >
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:27 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"James Robertson" jamesrob328i
I just returned from a group bicycling vacation abroad, and I'm trying to decide what to use to replace the iPhoto-iWeb combination that used to work so well to generate a multimedia travelogue to which I can invite my traveling companions. Initially, I assumed that using iWeb would still be best, because the "Share" menu in iPhoto still includes iWeb, but IT'S NO LONGER FUNCTIONAL (the menu item is there but "greyed out)."
What I'm hoping to do:
1. Create a travelog website that offers some of the really attractive formatting effects that used to be so easy to accomplish in iWeb (skewing pictures a bit, or putting little frames around them, or moving them around on the page at will).
2. Placing text next to, or wrapping part-way around a picture.
3. Relatively painless DISPLAY of lower resolution images on the web, but availability to the invited viewer of the site of full res images.
One of the suggested replacements for iWeb is Sandvox. I've downloaded a trial version and cannot understand why it's so well regarded. The publishers say that it creates clean HTML, but it does so at the expense of enormous constraints. For example, if one selects one of its fancy template pages but doesn't like the positioning of the site author's name in the "footer" of the page, there's no way to change it because such elements are hard-coded into the design. Even more distressing, when it imports photos from iPhoto, sometimes it rotates them 90 degrees, and even their own tech support doesn't seem to know why it does this. Remarkably minor "adjustments" to the look of a page require LOTS of knowlege or html, or bravery, or both.
Basically what I'm looking for is something that "plays nice" with iPhoto, allows me to create a web site in which some pages tell a story, some simply offer photo galleries. I've considered the work-arounds for hosting an iWeb-created site in my Dropbox account, as David Pogue and others have suggested, but because my trip was to a non-English-speaking country, I'd like to include a Google Map feature in the site so that my fellow travelers can remember where pictures were taken. Even though the "prettiest" pages seem to come from iWeb, I fear this won't work (others have reported that some of iWeb's "widgets" don't work any longer when they've been hosted somewhere other than MobileMe, and anyway I don't think I can use iPhoto as the source of low-res web images that are backed by web-server based downloadable images.
Does anyone have favorites among either the "easy to use" or "consumer friendly" web design packages or the photo sharing sites that actually WORKS to play well with iPhoto and Mountain Lion? Please don't suggest facebook. I may be "snooty" here, but the whole ethos of that product bothers me. Picassa has been suggested by some, with the notation that it creates mobile-app friendly pages. That's not a requirement for me, but I've not looked at it from the other perspectives I've listed as yet.
As I've been struggling with this the past day, I think I've come to some understanding of why MobileMe Web Galleries are gone but iTunes match is here. Clearly Apple has the server storage space host ENORMOUS amounts of "user content." I suspect that they simply have little interest in using that space to host stuff that doesn't bring them income. iTunes match is a compromise that permits customers to put their "own" (not purchased from the iTunes store) music there because they're betting that at least a good bit of what they host they WILL make money from, but they don't have a model for doing so for peoples' pictures of their travels, or their grandkids, etc. I have little hope of seeing a replacement for the iWeb/MobileMe galleries added to iCloud for exactly this reason; it's not technical (it worked BETTER than everything else that's available); it's solely monetary. JMO.
Thanks so much,
Jim Robertson
What I'm hoping to do:
1. Create a travelog website that offers some of the really attractive formatting effects that used to be so easy to accomplish in iWeb (skewing pictures a bit, or putting little frames around them, or moving them around on the page at will).
2. Placing text next to, or wrapping part-way around a picture.
3. Relatively painless DISPLAY of lower resolution images on the web, but availability to the invited viewer of the site of full res images.
One of the suggested replacements for iWeb is Sandvox. I've downloaded a trial version and cannot understand why it's so well regarded. The publishers say that it creates clean HTML, but it does so at the expense of enormous constraints. For example, if one selects one of its fancy template pages but doesn't like the positioning of the site author's name in the "footer" of the page, there's no way to change it because such elements are hard-coded into the design. Even more distressing, when it imports photos from iPhoto, sometimes it rotates them 90 degrees, and even their own tech support doesn't seem to know why it does this. Remarkably minor "adjustments" to the look of a page require LOTS of knowlege or html, or bravery, or both.
Basically what I'm looking for is something that "plays nice" with iPhoto, allows me to create a web site in which some pages tell a story, some simply offer photo galleries. I've considered the work-arounds for hosting an iWeb-created site in my Dropbox account, as David Pogue and others have suggested, but because my trip was to a non-English-
Does anyone have favorites among either the "easy to use" or "consumer friendly" web design packages or the photo sharing sites that actually WORKS to play well with iPhoto and Mountain Lion? Please don't suggest facebook. I may be "snooty" here, but the whole ethos of that product bothers me. Picassa has been suggested by some, with the notation that it creates mobile-app friendly pages. That's not a requirement for me, but I've not looked at it from the other perspectives I've listed as yet.
As I've been struggling with this the past day, I think I've come to some understanding of why MobileMe Web Galleries are gone but iTunes match is here. Clearly Apple has the server storage space host ENORMOUS amounts of "user content." I suspect that they simply have little interest in using that space to host stuff that doesn't bring them income. iTunes match is a compromise that permits customers to put their "own" (not purchased from the iTunes store) music there because they're betting that at least a good bit of what they host they WILL make money from, but they don't have a model for doing so for peoples' pictures of their travels, or their grandkids, etc. I have little hope of seeing a replacement for the iWeb/MobileMe galleries added to iCloud for exactly this reason; it's not technical (it worked BETTER than everything else that's available); it's solely monetary. JMO.
Thanks so much,
Jim Robertson
Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:38 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Bekah" bekalex
I totally agree with your last paragraph about the lack of interest in this area being money-driven. That said, I've gone to WordPress for the bulk of my old pages (book reviews and light family stuff) - I didn't need all that from Sandvox. My problem is I've found nowhere to put the linked Reunion Genealogy pages - I'm told I can use Dropbox but I've not been able to get that to work right. I may have to go to MacHighway or something.
Bekah
On Aug 20, 2012, at 7:27 AM, James Robertson wrote:
> I just returned from a group bicycling vacation abroad, and I'm trying to decide what to use to replace the iPhoto-iWeb combination that used to work so well to generate a multimedia travelogue to which I can invite my traveling companions. Initially, I assumed that using iWeb would still be best, because the "Share" menu in iPhoto still includes iWeb, but IT'S NO LONGER FUNCTIONAL (the menu item is there but "greyed out)."
>
> What I'm hoping to do:
>
> 1. Create a travelog website that offers some of the really attractive formatting effects that used to be so easy to accomplish in iWeb (skewing pictures a bit, or putting little frames around them, or moving them around on the page at will).
>
> 2. Placing text next to, or wrapping part-way around a picture.
>
> 3. Relatively painless DISPLAY of lower resolution images on the web, but availability to the invited viewer of the site of full res images.
>
> One of the suggested replacements for iWeb is Sandvox. I've downloaded a trial version and cannot understand why it's so well regarded. The publishers say that it creates clean HTML, but it does so at the expense of enormous constraints. For example, if one selects one of its fancy template pages but doesn't like the positioning of the site author's name in the "footer" of the page, there's no way to change it because such elements are hard-coded into the design. Even more distressing, when it imports photos from iPhoto, sometimes it rotates them 90 degrees, and even their own tech support doesn't seem to know why it does this. Remarkably minor "adjustments" to the look of a page require LOTS of knowlege or html, or bravery, or both.
>
> Basically what I'm looking for is something that "plays nice" with iPhoto, allows me to create a web site in which some pages tell a story, some simply offer photo galleries. I've considered the work-arounds for hosting an iWeb-created site in my Dropbox account, as David Pogue and others have suggested, but because my trip was to a non-English-speaking country, I'd like to include a Google Map feature in the site so that my fellow travelers can remember where pictures were taken. Even though the "prettiest" pages seem to come from iWeb, I fear this won't work (others have reported that some of iWeb's "widgets" don't work any longer when they've been hosted somewhere other than MobileMe, and anyway I don't think I can use iPhoto as the source of low-res web images that are backed by web-server based downloadable images.
>
> Does anyone have favorites among either the "easy to use" or "consumer friendly" web design packages or the photo sharing sites that actually WORKS to play well with iPhoto and Mountain Lion? Please don't suggest facebook. I may be "snooty" here, but the whole ethos of that product bothers me. Picassa has been suggested by some, with the notation that it creates mobile-app friendly pages. That's not a requirement for me, but I've not looked at it from the other perspectives I've listed as yet.
>
> As I've been struggling with this the past day, I think I've come to some understanding of why MobileMe Web Galleries are gone but iTunes match is here. Clearly Apple has the server storage space host ENORMOUS amounts of "user content." I suspect that they simply have little interest in using that space to host stuff that doesn't bring them income. iTunes match is a compromise that permits customers to put their "own" (not purchased from the iTunes store) music there because they're betting that at least a good bit of what they host they WILL make money from, but they don't have a model for doing so for peoples' pictures of their travels, or their grandkids, etc. I have little hope of seeing a replacement for the iWeb/MobileMe galleries added to iCloud for exactly this reason; it's not technical (it worked BETTER than everything else that's available); it's solely monetary. JMO.
>
> Thanks so much,
> Jim Robertson
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Bekah
On Aug 20, 2012, at 7:27 AM, James Robertson wrote:
> I just returned from a group bicycling vacation abroad, and I'm trying to decide what to use to replace the iPhoto-iWeb combination that used to work so well to generate a multimedia travelogue to which I can invite my traveling companions. Initially, I assumed that using iWeb would still be best, because the "Share" menu in iPhoto still includes iWeb, but IT'S NO LONGER FUNCTIONAL (the menu item is there but "greyed out)."
>
> What I'm hoping to do:
>
> 1. Create a travelog website that offers some of the really attractive formatting effects that used to be so easy to accomplish in iWeb (skewing pictures a bit, or putting little frames around them, or moving them around on the page at will).
>
> 2. Placing text next to, or wrapping part-way around a picture.
>
> 3. Relatively painless DISPLAY of lower resolution images on the web, but availability to the invited viewer of the site of full res images.
>
> One of the suggested replacements for iWeb is Sandvox. I've downloaded a trial version and cannot understand why it's so well regarded. The publishers say that it creates clean HTML, but it does so at the expense of enormous constraints. For example, if one selects one of its fancy template pages but doesn't like the positioning of the site author's name in the "footer" of the page, there's no way to change it because such elements are hard-coded into the design. Even more distressing, when it imports photos from iPhoto, sometimes it rotates them 90 degrees, and even their own tech support doesn't seem to know why it does this. Remarkably minor "adjustments" to the look of a page require LOTS of knowlege or html, or bravery, or both.
>
> Basically what I'm looking for is something that "plays nice" with iPhoto, allows me to create a web site in which some pages tell a story, some simply offer photo galleries. I've considered the work-arounds for hosting an iWeb-created site in my Dropbox account, as David Pogue and others have suggested, but because my trip was to a non-English-
>
> Does anyone have favorites among either the "easy to use" or "consumer friendly" web design packages or the photo sharing sites that actually WORKS to play well with iPhoto and Mountain Lion? Please don't suggest facebook. I may be "snooty" here, but the whole ethos of that product bothers me. Picassa has been suggested by some, with the notation that it creates mobile-app friendly pages. That's not a requirement for me, but I've not looked at it from the other perspectives I've listed as yet.
>
> As I've been struggling with this the past day, I think I've come to some understanding of why MobileMe Web Galleries are gone but iTunes match is here. Clearly Apple has the server storage space host ENORMOUS amounts of "user content." I suspect that they simply have little interest in using that space to host stuff that doesn't bring them income. iTunes match is a compromise that permits customers to put their "own" (not purchased from the iTunes store) music there because they're betting that at least a good bit of what they host they WILL make money from, but they don't have a model for doing so for peoples' pictures of their travels, or their grandkids, etc. I have little hope of seeing a replacement for the iWeb/MobileMe galleries added to iCloud for exactly this reason; it's not technical (it worked BETTER than everything else that's available); it's solely monetary. JMO.
>
> Thanks so much,
> Jim Robertson
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:52 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Randy B. Singer" randybrucesinger
On Aug 20, 2012, at 7:27 AM, James Robertson wrote:
> Does anyone have favorites among either the "easy to use" or "consumer friendly" web design packages
I really like:
BLUEGRIFFON (free and open-source)
http://bluegriffon.
Free video tutorial series:
(The tutorial does not use the Mac version of the program, but the program should be virtually identical across platforms.)
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
http://www.youtube.
Add-ons (including manual and templates)
http://www.bluegrif
Have a look at:
Replacements for iWeb:
http://www.macworld
Ten Ways To replace iWeb
http://www.tuaw.
Transitioning from iWeb
http://www.karelia.
____________
Randy B. Singer
Co-author of The Macintosh Bible (4th, 5th, and 6th editions)
Macintosh OS X Routine Maintenance
http://www.macattor
____________
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Mon Aug 20, 2012 7:50 am (PDT) . Posted by:
"Michael P. Stupinski" mstupinski
The problem of mangled posts (no subject, extended headers appearing in the middle of posts, etc.) has now appeared in the Yahoo Polish Genius Group, at least for two recent posts of mine. I would appreciate it if anyone here whose posts were also mangled would let me know the details of their configuration (mail app and its version, OS version, etc.) so I can compare it with mine.
Thanks,
................Mike
On Aug 18, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Ian Gillis <tessel.bas@gmail.com > wrote:
> On 17 August 2012 23:19, Michael P. Stupinski <mpstupinski@snet.net > wrote:
>> As you said in your post to the Help Community, Ian, it was not the fault of the sender, at least not in the case of my post. Mine was a reply to a post by Marc, the previous sender and of course my post had the same subject as his did.
>
> Hi Michael,
> It's now a "Known Issue" in the Communities Forum: see http://yhoo.it/N75lma
> regards,
> Ian
>
> --
> ______________________________________________________
>  tessel.bas@gmail.com or iangillis@iee.org
> Site Web http://www.notrevieenfrance.net
> Blog http://stecolombedevilleneuve.wordpress.com
> Facebook http://www.facebook.com/ian.gillis
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsupportcentral.com/policies/ >
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
Thanks,
............
On Aug 18, 2012, at 2:46 AM, Ian Gillis <tessel.bas@gmail.
> On 17 August 2012 23:19, Michael P. Stupinski <mpstupinski@
>> As you said in your post to the Help Community, Ian, it was not the fault of the sender, at least not in the case of my post. Mine was a reply to a post by Marc, the previous sender and of course my post had the same subject as his did.
>
> Hi Michael,
> It's now a "Known Issue" in the Communities Forum: see http://yhoo.
> regards,
> Ian
>
> --
> ____________
>  tessel.bas@gmail.
> Site Web http://www.notrevie
> Blog http://stecolombede
> Facebook http://www.facebook
>
>
> ------------
>
> Group FAQ:
> <http://www.macsuppo
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
GROUP FOOTER MESSAGE
