Nature Pics
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
-
Sassafras
- still raining, still dreaming
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:55 am
- Location: On the far side of nowhere
- Contact:
Sorry Hobby. My monitor is also high resolution 1280x1024. (19inch screen ... great for movies and baseball games 
)
Let me know if any of my pics are too large and I'll gladly shrink them.
)Let me know if any of my pics are too large and I'll gladly shrink them.
Ever mindful of the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit, axordil sums up the Sil:
"Too many Fingolfins, not enough Sams."
Yes.
truehobbit, if you are at least running Windows98 you can change the resolution on your computer screen. Right click anywhere on your wallpaper screen, chose properties, then settings. There's an area that has a sliding bar under 'screen area'. This is where you chose your resolution. You don't have to have a fancy monitor or high tech computer...just Windows. Of course your monitor size does depend on how high a resolution you can actually use.
My monitor isn't huge and I have my resolution set on 1024 x 768. I generally don't have to scroll.
Alatar is completely right when he says you can't know what resolution people have. People who use a higher resolution also have no way to know if their picture is too big unless they reset the resolution on their monitor. So you have to tell a person if it's too big for you. A general "No big pictures please" statement doesn't work since what's big for one person, is not for another.
My monitor isn't huge and I have my resolution set on 1024 x 768. I generally don't have to scroll.
Alatar is completely right when he says you can't know what resolution people have. People who use a higher resolution also have no way to know if their picture is too big unless they reset the resolution on their monitor. So you have to tell a person if it's too big for you. A general "No big pictures please" statement doesn't work since what's big for one person, is not for another.
-
truehobbit
- Cute, cuddly and dangerous to know
- Posts: 6019
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 2:52 am
- Contact:
Eru, thanks! 
I've tried out different resolutions in the past, but didn't like any others.
The highest possible one on my PC is 1280x1024 - making the letters so small I can't read a thing - that's why I assume that other machines must somehow support this differently, because otherwise no one could read anything.
Even 1024 x 768 is unpleasantly small for me.
So, I use a low resolution (800x600) on purpose because I prefer somewhat bigger letters - easier on the eyes for me, I find.
You are right, I'd need to tell people if a pic is too big for me, and that's ok, too, but I don't want to complain a lot either, and you never know how people will react - so I'm very grateful for people here saying they would be alright to shrink a pic if asked.
But I wasn't really asking "no big pictues" - it's just that I think that there's still a normal, "average" size for pictures that are used online, isn't there?
As big as possible doesn't seem a very good option to me in anything. When I visit websites, very few of them use pictures that are too big for my screen, and if they do it's either because it's not a professional site, and someone just uploaded their holiday pics full-size, or it's a specialist site that needs to present detail on their pics (some art pages have great enlargement facilities) - but I think there is still such a thing as an average size. Most people have their cameras set on a medium size, most online albums display pics at a medium size.
I think I'm really just asking to try to keep it to the norm!
I've never yet asked for a pic in this thread to be made smaller, even though it's sad when I miss one because it's too big, but I know that's just for me.
But it also happens rather rarely that pics are too big - ok, there's usually one on each page, which means I can't read posts without scrolling, but that's my problem, and by far the most pics are of perfect size here!
So, to say it again, I'm just saying that I would prefer if there didn't develop a bigger=better attitude to pics here!
I'm very grateful for people here who offer to shrink pics and show understanding of the problems big pics might cause, and I'll try not to take advantage of their understanding but rather take all the pics as they come, and so far that's been no problem.
I'm just asking for all to try to remember the needs of the others.
I've tried out different resolutions in the past, but didn't like any others.
The highest possible one on my PC is 1280x1024 - making the letters so small I can't read a thing - that's why I assume that other machines must somehow support this differently, because otherwise no one could read anything.
Even 1024 x 768 is unpleasantly small for me.
So, I use a low resolution (800x600) on purpose because I prefer somewhat bigger letters - easier on the eyes for me, I find.
You are right, I'd need to tell people if a pic is too big for me, and that's ok, too, but I don't want to complain a lot either, and you never know how people will react - so I'm very grateful for people here saying they would be alright to shrink a pic if asked.
But I wasn't really asking "no big pictues" - it's just that I think that there's still a normal, "average" size for pictures that are used online, isn't there?
As big as possible doesn't seem a very good option to me in anything. When I visit websites, very few of them use pictures that are too big for my screen, and if they do it's either because it's not a professional site, and someone just uploaded their holiday pics full-size, or it's a specialist site that needs to present detail on their pics (some art pages have great enlargement facilities) - but I think there is still such a thing as an average size. Most people have their cameras set on a medium size, most online albums display pics at a medium size.
I think I'm really just asking to try to keep it to the norm!
I've never yet asked for a pic in this thread to be made smaller, even though it's sad when I miss one because it's too big, but I know that's just for me.
But it also happens rather rarely that pics are too big - ok, there's usually one on each page, which means I can't read posts without scrolling, but that's my problem, and by far the most pics are of perfect size here!
So, to say it again, I'm just saying that I would prefer if there didn't develop a bigger=better attitude to pics here!
I'm very grateful for people here who offer to shrink pics and show understanding of the problems big pics might cause, and I'll try not to take advantage of their understanding but rather take all the pics as they come, and so far that's been no problem.
I'm just asking for all to try to remember the needs of the others.
but being a cheerful hobbit he had not needed hope, as long as despair could be postponed.
My favorite snow pictures of his may not be appropriate for this thread since they have man-made objects in it, but I'll post it anyway since they're so pretty. Hope you all don't mind. If you do, I can delete them:
The lane in front of his house.
Spring snow, Cardiff. (If this picture is too big, let me know.)
The lane in front of his house.
Spring snow, Cardiff. (If this picture is too big, let me know.)
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
Those are lovely, Eru, especially the snowy tulips. And the snowy field a couple of posts above. Iavas has a real gift.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
I didn't have a camera with me today. Well, to be honest, I never do. I am a rotten photographer.
But if I had my camera and if I could take pictures, I would have had the world's greatest "nature" photograph today. Since I have no photo, and I can't paint or draw, I want to try and say what I saw.
I was driving along at about noon. The day, which had begun in mist and drizzle, had become bright and cold. The sky was clearing to the west and north, and I could see that there was sunshine coming in.
I turned off the highway, turning from west to north. Ahead of me were The Golden Ears, three peaks in the Coast Range of mountains. They are north of the Fraser River, and appear to rise almost directly from that river, although that's a trick of perspective. Today the valley bottom was all fog, a thick blanket, and that was all that was between me and those mountains.
How can I begin to describe them? The sun shone on them, and nowhere else, the sky behind them was an intense cold blue. There had been a snowfall over there, and the high, long slopes were freshly white, the peaks stood sharp and precise against the sky.
Because of the fog they seemed to float against the north, serene, shining as much from their beauty as from the sun. They are massive, it is as if some of the Rockies had stepped westward, looking for the ocean; yet their lines are pure and clean and somehow light, it is easy to understand that the rocks are lifting themselves. Above the treeline there are great slashes of bare rock, purple and black with shadows, and below the division each tree was separately snowed on, frosted, and although I was 30 miles away I could see each one.
I pulled over to the side of the road and just sat there, drinking it in.
The whole busy valley was invisible under the fog, houses, railways, roads, towns. I thought if I got out of my car and walked down a little way I could step out onto the fog. I imagined what it would feel like, walking on the greyness, the substance of the fog would give beneath my feet, I would sink in a little, but it would be springy, too, and help me to go faster.
At last I had to move, drive on to keep my appointment. I went down into the fog, and when I was in it it wasn't thick at all. But the mountains were hidden. All afternoon as I dealt with doctors and nurses and creaking robots, I thought about them, shining there beyond the river.
But if I had my camera and if I could take pictures, I would have had the world's greatest "nature" photograph today. Since I have no photo, and I can't paint or draw, I want to try and say what I saw.
I was driving along at about noon. The day, which had begun in mist and drizzle, had become bright and cold. The sky was clearing to the west and north, and I could see that there was sunshine coming in.
I turned off the highway, turning from west to north. Ahead of me were The Golden Ears, three peaks in the Coast Range of mountains. They are north of the Fraser River, and appear to rise almost directly from that river, although that's a trick of perspective. Today the valley bottom was all fog, a thick blanket, and that was all that was between me and those mountains.
How can I begin to describe them? The sun shone on them, and nowhere else, the sky behind them was an intense cold blue. There had been a snowfall over there, and the high, long slopes were freshly white, the peaks stood sharp and precise against the sky.
Because of the fog they seemed to float against the north, serene, shining as much from their beauty as from the sun. They are massive, it is as if some of the Rockies had stepped westward, looking for the ocean; yet their lines are pure and clean and somehow light, it is easy to understand that the rocks are lifting themselves. Above the treeline there are great slashes of bare rock, purple and black with shadows, and below the division each tree was separately snowed on, frosted, and although I was 30 miles away I could see each one.
I pulled over to the side of the road and just sat there, drinking it in.
The whole busy valley was invisible under the fog, houses, railways, roads, towns. I thought if I got out of my car and walked down a little way I could step out onto the fog. I imagined what it would feel like, walking on the greyness, the substance of the fog would give beneath my feet, I would sink in a little, but it would be springy, too, and help me to go faster.
At last I had to move, drive on to keep my appointment. I went down into the fog, and when I was in it it wasn't thick at all. But the mountains were hidden. All afternoon as I dealt with doctors and nurses and creaking robots, I thought about them, shining there beyond the river.
Dig deeper.
-
Primula Baggins
- Living in hope
- Posts: 40005
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:43 am
- Location: Sailing the luminiferous aether
- Contact:
I have always felt pulled north—I loved the beauty of Norway and Sweden and Scotland, and what little I've seen of Alaska, and a glimpse of Iceland and Greenland; and the most beautiful places I've ever been were in the Canadian Rockies (Lake Louise was one). Something about places north of here, space and cold and clarity, calls to me. (I'm not romanticizing; when I went there as a child we always had to camp to afford the trip, and so I know it's cold up there!)
Images like the one you just created in my mind are part of why I know I'll be back.
Images like the one you just created in my mind are part of why I know I'll be back.
“There, peeping among the cloud-wrack above a dark tor high up in the mountains, Sam saw a white star twinkle for a while. The beauty of it smote his heart, as he looked up out of the forsaken land, and hope returned to him. For like a shaft, clear and cold, the thought pierced him that in the end the Shadow was only a small and passing thing: there was light and high beauty for ever beyond its reach.”
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
― J.R.R. Tolkien, The Return of the King
-
Voronwë the Faithful
- At the intersection of here and now
- Posts: 46172
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 1:41 am
- Contact:
Eru, I LOVE those pictures.
vison, you may want to repost that lovely description in this thread: Nature's Beauty Painted in Your Words
For today, in honor Goldberry and Tom Bombadillo:
vison, you may want to repost that lovely description in this thread: Nature's Beauty Painted in Your Words
For today, in honor Goldberry and Tom Bombadillo:
"Spirits in the shape of hawks and eagles flew ever to and from his halls; and their eyes could see to the depths of the seas, and pierce the hidden caverns beneath the world."
-
Sassafras
- still raining, still dreaming
- Posts: 1406
- Joined: Mon Nov 21, 2005 4:55 am
- Location: On the far side of nowhere
- Contact:
And now for something completely different:
The Orion nebula:
and,Messier Object 16, the Eagle Nebula: this eerie, dark structure is a column of cool molecular hydrogen gas and dust that is an incubator for new stars. The stars are embedded inside finger-like protrusions clearly seen extending from the top of the column. Each "fingertip" is somewhat larger than our own solar system.
The Orion nebula:
Ever mindful of the maxim that brevity is the soul of wit, axordil sums up the Sil:
"Too many Fingolfins, not enough Sams."
Yes.
