Ninepatch

butter

Oh yeah - my Olympus kicks butt on macro shots, which I love when I'm shooting stuff in the garden. If that's important to you, test the lens before buying. Not all macro lenses are born equal. The blooms below are about 1/2 the size of an American dime - this was almost full frame if I recall using the macro and doubler functions. It's a handheld shot. For $150 camera, it works for me. A Zeiss lens? Really? Very cool.

happy

brown

I have an Olympus D-460 Zoom 1.3 mpx, it's a few years old but it does a good job for me. I use it primarily for small image work - my garden, quilt blocks, the cat, stuff to put on eBay, stuff for my website. Over this spring I had the chance to use it to record a few political rallies I attended and it did a better job than I expected from a 1.3 - the images I got at medium resolution were fine for posting to the web. Don't know that I'd get much more than a 4X6 print out of them, though. I have 2 sets of 4 NiMH AA rechargeable batteries that I bought when I got the camera - probably about $35 in the whole setup there. Power is never an issue, these batteries perform long and well for me. The clamshell cover is also the power-on control. It fits into a blazer pocket and is light enough to hang comfortably from a lanyard around my neck. It has several flash setting alternatives which keep me from having to make the decision all the time. The zoom makes it equivalent to a 35-105 lens at about f5.6. It has arperture control at +/- half-stops which I like a lot. I'd like more mpx, but unless I have a real need to I won't replace this camera. The Olympus product has been durable and reliable for me, their online support is easy to use, and when I lost my manual I was able to download a free copy from their website - I like that. I was a Minolta user in SLRs.

escolar (my favorite fish, lives in the Gulf of Mexico here in the States)

cheerleaders

boots

guests

I have 4 images that are dark, but that's because of my scanner. They are transparancies and the quality just isn't there in the scan, even though the HP scanner I have is equipped with a transparency function. I got semi-decent results playing with the gamma and contrast, but nothing to brag about. I'm liking Irfan more and more as I play with it. I'm actually going to rescan all of the images I did for the page I created yesterday, LOL. Thanks again for all of your help.

Christmas

rum (....not as good as Scotch, but better than cheap Scotch)

I bow to you all - you are my heroes! I've only played with it for a few hours and have had a ball. What an amazing little program it is. It's making major improvements on my website, that's for sure. Don - I found the bevel settings when I was playing with making buttons the other day, too cool! Thanks all of you for your help!

soda (unless of course you're from anywhere west of NJ & NY, LOL)

Does anyone know if there's a way to set the increments by which IrfanView sharpens an image? In my Camedia software, which came with my Olympus camera, the sharpen feature works in very small increments. Irfan seems to take a hefty leap each time you apply Sharpen. It would be nice if you could back that down to a smaller increment which could be applied multiple times. Anyone know? I'm using V 3.91. Thanks.

fingers (now you've got me laughing Thomas - there's no typo there, whelp is another word for giving birth, used commonly to refer to dogs giving birth to puppies - but if you knew that already, nevermind, I'm still tired from yesterday, LOL)

Thanks for all the extra info Sami - as always you are a never-ending fountain of wonderful knowledge!

whelp

rattail

volume

value

First - thank you Don and Bruce for sending me back to the drawing board with Irfanview for my images. What a difference! I was able to reduce some of them by 75%! I still haven't gotten the color tweaking down, but I've only played with it for an afternoon. Do either of you know if you can set finer increments for the sharpen function? Anyhow, I published a .tlx file as a sub-directory today (it's nowhere near done, just piddling around.) It's a gallery of images that will link back to my main site. When CSB4 published the file, for each page it published the .htm file, plus 5 others with identical extensions for all 12 files - i.e. apples.htm - that's the name I gave the page, then CSB4 added: apples_l.htm apples_r.htm apples_t.htm apples_b.htm apples_m.htm CSB4 did exactly this for every one of the 12 pages in the gallery. Doesn't this bulk up my .tlx file? Can anyone tell me what these are? The gallery works just fine - well, as far as I've taken it that is. Just curious. Again, thanks for the advice on Irfan! Thumbs Up gallery page under construction

Oppenheimer

bloodlust

Don - He's such a cutie - those blue eyes are beautiful! Well, looks like things are well in hand with Oscar on the job. Thanks for sharing!