|
Post by cabintom on Sept 3, 2016 18:27:02 GMT
Felt like posting a specimen, but also am feeling lazy... so here's a beautiful butterfly, without the usual nice presentation: Cymothoe excelsa regisleopoldi Overlaet, 1944 25/VII/2016 Near Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m At some point I'll post some video from this locality... it was pretty awesome.
|
|
|
Post by mygos on Sept 3, 2016 19:47:44 GMT
Thank you Tom ! I am always so happy to see my old friends again ...
A+, Michel
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 3, 2016 21:11:30 GMT
Caught at almost precisely the same place as the last one... Pseudacraea eurytus eurytus (Linnaeus, 1758) 23/VII/2016 Near Nebobongo, Haut-Uele (2°28'N, 27°38'E) 760m ... the abdomen kind of dried weird on it though.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Sept 4, 2016 0:34:20 GMT
Those last 2 images Tom are clear and quite beautiful species however, the photos appear "narrow" or parallel sided looking. Don't mean to sound so critical...
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 4, 2016 13:35:32 GMT
the photos appear "narrow" or parallel sided looking I'm not understanding what you mean, if you could elaborate...
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 4, 2016 14:49:13 GMT
Yes, I noticed this problem, the photos appear slightly stretched vertically, rather like the effect of looking in a mirror in one of those old amusement arcades that makes you look thinner and taller than normal. I wonder if it depends on the browser you are using, I'm still on IE8. It doesn't seem to be the browser, I just opened the page with Chrome, and it was the same or maybe even more obvious.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 4, 2016 15:13:39 GMT
Yes, I noticed this problem, the photos appear slightly stretched vertically, rather like the effect of looking in a mirror in one of those old amusement arcades that makes you look thinner and taller than normal. I wonder if it depends on the browser you are using, I'm still on IE8. It doesn't seem to be the browser, I just opened the page with Chrome, and it was the same or maybe even more obvious. Adam. Hmm... I think you're on to something. I'd guess you're both using lower resolution screens, and for some reason these 2 pictures aren't resizing properly (their not keeping their native ratio). I just tested by adjusting the width of my browser window and immediately saw the issue. I'll try making the images smaller... maybe that'll fix things. EDIT: Should be fixed now. How does it look on your end?
|
|
|
Post by Paul K on Sept 4, 2016 17:15:03 GMT
Yes, I noticed this problem, the photos appear slightly stretched vertically, rather like the effect of looking in a mirror in one of those old amusement arcades that makes you look thinner and taller than normal. I wonder if it depends on the browser you are using, I'm still on IE8. It doesn't seem to be the browser, I just opened the page with Chrome, and it was the same or maybe even more obvious. Adam. Hmm... I think you're on to something. I'd guess you're both using lower resolution screens, and for some reason these 2 pictures aren't resizing properly (their not keeping their native ratio). I just tested by adjusting the width of my browser window and immediately saw the issue. I'll try making the images smaller... maybe that'll fix things. EDIT: Should be fixed now. How does it look on your end? They look fine now, I noticed that problem before too. Paul
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Sept 4, 2016 17:38:48 GMT
Looks OK on Firefox - I don't see a difference from the first versions!
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Sept 4, 2016 17:50:41 GMT
Yes they look normal now, thanks Tom.
Adam.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 4, 2016 18:22:57 GMT
Ok. Thanks everybody! The problem was caused when I resized the photo within the "reply" function of this forum. I figured full-size was too big (3072px across), so I manually resized the photo down to 1000px across. Apparently doing this prevents this website properly resizing the image to fit to each person's display (while keeping the original size ratio).
So, if you've got a very large, high resolution, display... sorry, you'll have a very large & detailed close up of these specimens! (Unless this forum has a limit to how wide it gets...)
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 4, 2016 18:27:25 GMT
I don't see a difference from the first versions! Out of curiosity is your screen resolution 1920px (or more) across? Mine is 1920 X 1080 and I didn't have a problem at all when I set the width of the pictures to 1000px across. I'm assuming this was because 1000px + width of the website elements < 1920px.
|
|
|
Post by deliasfanatic on Sept 4, 2016 18:31:48 GMT
No, the computer that I use for internet has the monitor at 1280x1024. Your photos display at roughly 70% of that width.
|
|
|
Post by cabintom on Sept 4, 2016 20:43:08 GMT
No, the computer that I use for internet has the monitor at 1280x1024. Your photos display at roughly 70% of that width. Then I have no idea why they weren't displaying properly for some people! At least it works now.
|
|
|
Post by trehopr1 on Sept 4, 2016 23:31:36 GMT
I'm getting back to you many hours later cabintom apparently after you fixed the issue. Yes, the photos look wonderful as always ! Many thanks.
|
|