OT: digital photos

"limey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> I have digital photo software and have tried others.
> However, how can I post just one photo to a newsgroup?
> Anything I look at only allows me to send a whole album to
> e-mail. Do I need a web page? Many thanks - and sorry for
> the OT post.
>
> Dora
>
> --

Dora, Ask in alt.binaries.food.Those guys are food
photo fanatics!

peace, Barbara

> [email protected]
>
> limey at toad dot net

On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:25:31 -0400, "limey" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have digital photo software and have tried others.
>However, how can I post just one photo to a newsgroup?
>Anything I look at only allows me to send a whole album to
>e-mail. Do I need a web page? Many thanks - and sorry for
>the OT post.

You can send one or many to the binary groups --
alt.binaries.whatever. AFAIK, the 'album' sites don't
require a specific minimum number of pics. Which one(s)
were you looking at? Does your ISP include any "personal
web space"? If so, you You can put pics there with a
minimum of fuss.

limey wrote:

> I have digital photo software and have tried others.
> However, how can I post just one photo to a newsgroup?
> Anything I look at only allows me to send a whole album to
> e-mail. Do I need a web page? Many thanks - and sorry for
> the OT post.
>
> Dora
>

Posting pictures to usenet is pretty simple. Compose a
message with your regular news client, add the pic as an
attachment, and hit send. It varies slightly depending on
the news client but it's pretty much the same.

Try some test postings to alt.test.binaries

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

"limey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
: I have digital photo software and have tried others.
: However,
how can I
: post just one photo to a newsgroup? Anything I look at
: only
allows me to
: send a whole album to e-mail. Do I need a web page? Many
thanks - and
: sorry for the OT post.
:
: Dora
:
========

I generally use:

http://www.ofoto.com It's free and anyone can look at the
pictures and if it really suits their fancy - they can buy
individual pictures.

Cyndi

In article <[email protected]>,
Reg <[email protected]> wrote:

> limey wrote:
>
> > I have digital photo software and have tried others.
> > However, how can I post just one photo to a newsgroup?
> > Anything I look at only allows me to send a whole album
> > to e-mail. Do I need a web page? Many thanks - and sorry
> > for the OT post.
> >
> > Dora
> >
>
> Posting pictures to usenet is pretty simple. Compose a
> message with your regular news client, add the pic as an
> attachment, and hit send. It varies slightly depending on
> the news client but it's pretty much the same.
>
> Try some test postings to alt.test.binaries

Please do not post pictures to rec.food.cooking by this
method. Your best bet is to put them up on a Web page and
post the URL.

Miche

--
If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud. --
Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

Miche wrote:

> Please do not post pictures to rec.food.cooking by this
> method. Your best bet is to put them up on a Web page and
> post the URL.

Or post to binary group, like alt.binaries.food

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

On 2004-05-22, Miche <[email protected]> wrote:

> Please do not post pictures to rec.food.cooking by this
> method. Your best bet is to put them up on a Web page and
> post the URL.

Thank you, Miche.

There should be no posting of pictures to Usenet, period. I
realize there are binaries, but still it was never Usenet's
purpose. Another reason not to post picture to Usenet is not
everyone can see them. I, and many others, do not use graphic-
based newsreaders. So, when someone post a picture to this
group, it appears as several thousand lines of random text.
Totally useless.

nb
--
Be considerate of others and trim your posts. Thank you.

In article <[email protected]>,
Reg <[email protected]> wrote:

> Miche wrote:
>
> > Please do not post pictures to rec.food.cooking by this
> > method. Your best bet is to put them up on a Web page
> > and post the URL.
>
> Or post to binary group, like alt.binaries.food

And leave a pointer here.

I tend to forget about binary newsgroups as my main news
server doesn't carry them. My secondary one does, though.

Miche

--
If you want to end war and stuff you got to sing loud. --
Arlo Guthrie, "Alice's Restaurant"

notbob wrote:

> There should be no posting of pictures to Usenet, period.
> I realize there are binaries, but still it was never
> Usenet's purpose. Another reason not to post picture to
> Usenet is not everyone can see them. I, and many others,
> do not use graphic-based newsreaders. So, when someone
> post a picture to this group, it appears as several
> thousand lines of random text. Totally useless.

That's pretty darn silly, nb. If you can't view binaries,
don't subscribe to binary groups. That doesn't mean no one
else should.

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

"notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> There should be no posting of pictures to Usenet, period.
> I realize there are binaries, but still it was never
> Usenet's purpose.

There should be no evolution? Should TV still be black &
white, or perhaps we should have just stuck with radio?

I heartily agree that pictures should not be posted to
regular groups, but binaries are for binary posting. Ed
[email protected] http://pages.cthome.net/edhome

I am with you on this one.... having a text only reader
really saves on virus downloading. (not that all or any of
us here have virus). Of course in a perfect world ....

take care Liz

Hey! Look what notbob <[email protected]> wrote :

>There should be no posting of pictures to Usenet, period. I
>realize there are binaries, but still it was never Usenet's
>purpose. Another reason not to post picture to Usenet is
>not everyone can see them. I, and many others, do not use
>graphic-based newsreaders. So, when someone post a picture
>to this group, it appears as several thousand lines of
>random text. Totally useless.
>
>nb

"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:CJRrc.428$K%[email protected]...
>
> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > There should be no posting of pictures to Usenet,
> > period. I realize
there
> > are binaries, but still it was never Usenet's purpose.
>
> There should be no evolution? Should TV still be black &
> white, or
perhaps
> we should have just stuck with radio?
>

Keep this line of reasoning up and we'll all be reduced to
living in caves. ;->

Bret

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the
World! -----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different
Servers! =-----

On 2004-05-22, Reg <[email protected]> wrote:

> That's pretty darn silly, nb. If you can't view binaries,
> don't subscribe to binary groups. That doesn't mean no one
> else should.

I don't subscribe to binary groups. I go to html websites,
the proper place to do graphics. Sure, one can argue that if
it's possible to post graphics on Usenet, why not. But it's
like arguing it's ok to use a screwdriver as a prybar. Sure,
it works, after a fashion. But, there are serious problems
created by doing so.

Usenet was never intended for graphics. That's what html is
for. Service providers, who originally put a small amount of
storage space/bandwith/resources aside for Usenet on their
servers, now find overwhelming amounts of data (graphics
files) being xfered to lil' ol' Usenet servers. So, what
used to be a nice little service offering as a bonus, used
to attract customers, has now become a major resource hog.
Sure, they realize that a small percentage of customers want
this resource. But, that small percentage uses the
overwhelming majority of it. So, what do the ISP's do?
First, they start limiting it. No more than n gigabytes per
day. Some quit carrying it, altogether. Others start
charging for it. I'm almost in that category. While Comcast
hasn't yet changed over to a pay-for Usenet service, they
are on the verge. I've researched other ISP's. Many no
longer offer Usenet access at all and one must now pay for
it through a 3rd party commercial service, one that charges
actual money! This all because a few think they should be
allowed to use the screwdriver as a prybar.

People are often lazy and inconsiderate. It's easier to
abuse existing services like Usenet and email, never
thinking of the consequences, than to make the effort to
learn to use the applications and protocols that are more
appropriate and make efficienct use of resources. Look at my
sig ..."please trim your posts". It's basic conservation.
Recycle your trash, brew your own beer, trim your posts!

nb
--
Be considerate of others and trim your posts. Thank you.

notbob wrote:

> Usenet was never intended for graphics. That's what
> html is for.

Not true. HTML/HTTP was not designed with graphics support
in mind, it was originally text only. It would be incorrect
to say that the web was somehow intended to be the "proper"
way to exchange image files.

HTML = hyperTEXT transfer protocol

> Service providers, who originally put a small amount of
> storage space/bandwith/resources aside for Usenet on their
> servers, now find overwhelming amounts of data (graphics
> files) being xfered to lil' ol' Usenet servers.

I don't know where you got this idea. The growth of usenet
traffic has nothing to do with binary files specifically.

I think maybe you're just wearing your curmudgeon hat today


--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

"notbob" wrote in message
>
> I don't subscribe to binary groups. I go to html websites,
> the proper
place
> to do graphics. Sure, one can argue that if it's
> possible to post
graphics
> on Usenet, why not. But it's like arguing it's ok to use a
> screwdriver as
a
> prybar. Sure, it works, after a fashion. But, there are
> serious problems created by doing so.
>
> Usenet was never intended for graphics. That's what html
> is for. nb

I know that this newsgroup does not accept photos. Binaries
are not the way I want to go. Let me word my question
differently. As an example, let's say I want people on the
newsgroup to see a photo of mine; I assume I have to furnish
a link for those who care to view it. How, then, do I
accomplish this? Do I need a web page? My software, and
others, only allows me to send an entire album to others via
e-mail, not to a newsgroup. Any advice would be appreciated.

Dora

Reg wrote:

> HTML = hyperTEXT transfer protocol

correction: HTTP = hyperTEXT transfer protocol

--
Reg email: RegForte (at) (that free MS email service) (dot)
com

"limey" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
>
> I know that this newsgroup does not accept photos.
> Binaries are not the way I want to go. Let me word my
> question differently. As an example, let's say I want
people
> on the newsgroup to see a photo of mine; I assume I have
> to furnish a link for those who care to view it. How,
> then, do I accomplish this? Do I need a web page? My
> software, and others, only allows me to send an
entire
> album to others via e-mail, not to a newsgroup. Any advice
> would be appreciated.
>
> Dora
>
>

I've used free websites like ofoto, snapfish, picturetrail,
and webshots. Of all those I prefer webshots.
www.webshots.com . With the trial membership, you only get a
limited number of albums with maximum 24 shots per album but
it's enough if you only post a picture or two. Downloading
the pictures is fairly easy, then just provide the link to
your albums for others to view. Mine is at
http://community.webshots.com/user/prasantrin if anyone
would like to take a look (I have more Japan pictures up,
though not all the captions are finished).

rona
--
"Do not meddle in the affairs of cats, for they are subtle
and they will **** upon your computer."
-- Bruce Graham

On Sat, 22 May 2004 13:25:31 -0400, "limey" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I have digital photo software and have tried others.
>However, how can I post just one photo to a newsgroup?
>Anything I look at only allows me to send a whole album to
>e-mail. Do I need a web page? Many thanks - and sorry for
>the OT post.
>
You can post to alt.binaries.photos.original using outlook
express. I frequent that newsgroup and they would be glad to
see your pics.

In article <CJRrc.428$K%[email protected]>, "Edwin
Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "notbob" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > There should be no posting of pictures to Usenet,
> > period. I realize there are binaries, but still it was
> > never Usenet's purpose.

I don't agree with this statement, mostly because of
the phrasing.

> There should be no evolution? Should TV still be black &
> white, or perhaps we should have just stuck with radio?

I think you have it backwards, Ed. Posting binaries to
newsgroups is the black and white phase. It is obsolete and
not a good way for most to distribute pictures. It is not
good mostly because it isn't effective, but it is also very
wasteful of space on newsgroup servers. Radio is newsgroups
before you could post pictures. Posting pictures on websites
and posting their URLs to newsgroups is color tv.

> I heartily agree that pictures should not be posted to
> regular groups, but binaries are for binary posting.

See above. If it works for you, great, but I personally
would never recommend it. It certainly doesn't work for me,
because my newsreader is very poor at extracting binaries.

--
Dan Abel Sonoma State University AIS [email protected]