Erma <none@none.com>wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Feb 2011 02:05:11 +1000, whoosenile <sparkin@home.null> wrote
>in:
><N0U4p.383$7P3.316@newsfe21.iad>:
>
>>On Wed, 09 Feb 2011 22:26:50 -0500, in alt.binaries.crafts.pictures
>>Erma <none@none.com> wrote:
>>
>>>Thank you so much for the AG designs. I was able to get them all, and all
>>>checked out just fine, even the pdfs.
>>>Erma
>>oh fine! NOT!
>>I have a list of problems with the post but
>>just check out these two!!
>>
>>Again a pile of PDF straight off the CD!
>>Is the message to resize a 117MB PDF to 6.7MB
>>BEFORE posting ever going to penetrate the thick
>>heads in this place?
>>I mean ..... EVER!
>>
>>And lets just not go anywhere near posting
>>huge freaking files in one chunk!!
>>I mean like, is there _a n y __thinking__ done in this
>>place?
>I can't argue those points whatsoever.
Correcto.. yet a Troll tries:
MID: <dg88l6lkjtbu06kvivtj4p51kph7i8905u@4ax.com>
>Took me all day to retrieve them.
Maybe an hour tops here. And just as well
as they will be off servers in no time.
Count yourself lucky you are hooked into
HW directly:-)
>But I still wanted to thank the poster for the designs themselves.
Point taken.
>Yes...we need to work on our posting methods.
Some just need to work. Period.
> Yes, we need to learn to condense the pdfs to manageable sizes
>for posting here.(I am myself trying to learn that--I've read the posts
>with instructions, and I will work at it) I am sure there were many
>who were not able to download those design packs.
And many more who will see the partial listing and scream
for reposts.
There is nothing "new" here in this posting style. It has all been
done before today many many times and largely (I suspect) from
the same source :-/
>But my opinion is--and it is only that...MY opinion-- If we want
>people to continue to post our requests, then we need to at least thank
>them for trying. Perhaps this poster is new, and hasn't read any of the
>posts with instructions yet. I am not a computer savvy individual, so it's
>taken me some time to learn to configure my settings as for posting. I am
>absolutely sure there are posts of mine that you just shake your head at.
>But I'm trying to learn. Let's hope this particular poster can learn the
>ropes to successful posting here and continue to contribute.
I am Usenet savvy. I go with what works in this newsgroup.
"Hope" does not work.
>May I ask a question...what is a suitable size for pdfs to post here with
>no problems? This is for my own personal learning. I am going to try
>some of the pdfs that came with these sets and see what I can do to reduce
>them. How else will I learn if I don't try? I see in your post above, you
>give a number from 117MB to 6.7MB. So will the 6.7 post acceptably? That
>is a huge reduction! Thanks for the help.
The number (6.7MB) is just the result of the process of reprinting.
The same PDF could easily be made to print at 10MB or 30MB or
even maybe 1MB. The output depends on the settings one chooses
to use ***with each PDF***.
Use the same thinking as in the printing of photos.
"Resolution" (dots per inch) and "Colour" replication.
150dpi will suffice for most PDF reprints.
25-30% of the original's graphic (colour) quality will produce
a viewable "picture".
If there is any doubt as to quality?
Send your reprinted PDF to your printer hardware and print the
reduced PDF out on plain paper. If you can read it and see the pictures
then so will the recipient... on any desktop.
And FYI?
You *are* a "good poster".
Not because of what you post here.
Not even because of how you post.
It is because you do "try".. the effort is very evident.
"Thankyou" comes in a lot of different packages, m'Dear:-)
cheers
--
arsehole #1
|
|