Nature Pics

Post by **Whistler** » Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:17 pm

This young owl came out for a rare bit of daytime exploring. He was kind enough pose for this picture, taken by yours truly on the grounds of the palatial Whistler estate.

Sat Dec 03, 2005 8:53 pm

W, that is one of the most remarkable pictures I have ever seen.

Sun Dec 04, 2005 5:34 pm

Post by **Erunáme** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:09 pm

Photo taken by Iavas_Saar in his village Winterslow, England near Salisbury.

Post by **Whistler** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:21 pm

Lovely, Eru! And tell Iavas I said so.

Post by **Athrabeth** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:45 pm

Another lovely pic, Eru! I love the quiet paths through wood and meadow that link so many of the villages in England. Such public walks through commonly held land, or even private land, are just not accepted here. One owner that DID allow the public to walk through an absolutely stunning forest to get to one of the few sandy stretches of beach on our island was sued when a woman (a visiter from the U.S.) fell and broke her arm. The entrance to the trail is now blocked.

Voronwë, what a starkly beautiful and noble silhouette. And that sky!!!

Here's one that a student of mine used to illustrate a report on leopards. I find the composition so striking because the colour and form of the leopard's body just seems to echo the strong, flowing lines of the branch.

I hope this doesn't stretch the page too much, but I just didn't have the heart to reduce the original.

Post by **Whistler** » Sun Dec 04, 2005 9:55 pm

Wonderful pic!

Um...I have also wondered how large our images here should be. It seems a shame to shrink them and rob them of their proper impact, but I know that some people have dial-up and so may have to skip them entirely. If anybody has anything to say about this, I'd like to hear it.

Sun Dec 04, 2005 10:33 pm

My opinion is that since this thread is mostly for pictures, people should not feel obliged to shrink them to fit. Of course, ultra-large pictures should probably be avoided, but we haven't had anything approaching that yet.

ETA: And I am one who is on dial-up.

Mon Dec 05, 2005 3:23 pm

Kindia, Guinea, West Africa.

Post by **elfshadow** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 12:17 am

What a wonderful idea for a thread!

This is a picture I took this summer while visiting my best friend. It was taken from a bridge on top of Box Canyon in Ouray, Colorado.

Post by **Sassafras** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:28 am

Oooo. Gorgeous canyon, elfshadow.

V., I can't see your Guinea pic. Must be the dial-up

Here's my offering for the day.

Could almost be Lothlórien.
You know, just as an aside, it was only after I first read LotR that I actually
saw trees ... as living beings with a sentience much different and probably slower than ours, but aware in ways we cannot imagine.

I like to believe Ents really do walk the earth.

Post by **Erunáme** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:34 am

photo taken by Iavas_Saar, Winterslow, England.

Tue Dec 06, 2005 2:51 am

Beautiful pictures, Sassy, Elfshadow, and Eru. Eru, that Iavas_Saar fellow is quite the photographer.

Sass, here is the Kindia picture:

Post by **Sassafras** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:09 am

Oh!!!!

<breathless>

Unbelievablely beautiful.

how inadequate words are sometimes.

Post by **elfshadow** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 3:30 am

Very much agreed, Sassafras

. For all our language can be manipulated, it doesn't truly express the awe we feel when we view pictures such as yours, Iavas', and Voronwë's.

Tue Dec 06, 2005 4:23 pm

Something just a little bit different today.

Post by **Erunáme** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:33 pm

That site doesn't allow hotlinking.

Hotlinking isn't great net etiquette, btw. It's basically stealing bandwidth.

Tue Dec 06, 2005 5:55 pm

Thanks, Eru. I didn't understand that. I will stop doing that in the future (and I've replaced the image above).

Post by **truehobbit** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:20 pm

Lovely pics, all!

I'd like to add a comment on pic size. The mere kb-size of a pic is not so important, I think - when I was on a dial up connection over the weekend I didn't open this thread because it would not have made sense - loading this on dial-up would take ages, unless people really limited themselves to small kb-sizes (which would be nice, too, but I guess is asking too much, especially if people don't know a lot about shrinking pics etc).

However, I thing people should take a look at how large their pic is displayed!
A pic that is bigger than the size of the screen doesn't make sense, IMO, because scrolling up and down doesn't help giving me an idea of the pic - if I can't see it all in one go, its effect is lost.

It would be nice if people thought of that, I think.

Post by **Alatar** » Tue Dec 06, 2005 8:26 pm

Unfortunately Hobby you can't always know what resolution people are using. I would never use less than 1024x768 and I'm currently at 1280x1024 both at work and at home. At those resolutions I never have to scroll to view a pic.

Alatar