Digital BW, The Print

Dennis W. Manasco writes:

> On one occasion my browser was able to see several of these pages as
> lists of photographs with descriptive text and visible links to Mr. 
> Atkielski's photographs. I have not been able to duplicate this 
> experience but, if Mr. Atkielski would like me to, I can illustrate 
> the problem with screen captures (off list).

Yes, I'd like a few screen captures of anything weird you saw.  I've
never heard of a problem like that before.  Maybe it was some sort of
one-time network quirk.  I did have to stop my server for about 10
minutes yesterday when a server in the UK started bashing it over and
over.

Also, because I have no money, many of the images are stored in
extremely compressed form on a different server--an intermittent problem
with that server may have messed up the images without affected the rest
of the pages (which comes from my own server).  It's possible to see
much higher quality images by changing the URL from www.atkielski.com to
friends.atkielski.com, but the images will download with painful
slowness then--it may be worthwhile if you are downloading a wallpaper
image to use as wallpaper, though.

> There is probably either an incompatibility between the site's HTML
> and the rendering abilities of Internet Explorer version 5.2.3 
> (5815.1) on a Macintosh running OS X version 10.2.8, or a problem 
> with one or more of the servers between his site and my computer.

An increasing number of my pages are in rigorously standard HTML; some
are formally validated (although probably not the ones you visited).  I
don't have any trouble with MSIE 6.x on Windows or with preceding
versions of that browser (recent versions).  Netscape 4.x will produce a
mess on most of the recent pages because I no longer write special
versions just to accommodate the bugs in that browser (hardly anyone
uses Netscape browsers anymore, so it's not worth it).

> As an aside: Viewing more of his photographs by clicking on the
> unloaded-picture icons has altered my impression of Mr. Atkielski's 
> final to-web exposure equivalence. I do not always agree with either 
> it or his choice of contrast, but I do admit that my reaction to the 
> images which I viewed on my initial visit to his site was 
> precipitously overstated.

If you are viewing with a Mac, be advised that many photos may look
washed out, as the standard gamma on Mac Monitors is lower than the
standard for Windows monitors.  Some Windows LCD monitors are also set
to a low gamma, although this is usually adjustable.  I used to have Mac
versions for some of the wallpaper images, but they were so rarely
downloaded that it wasn't worth the effort.  Today all the wallpaper
images are set to Windows gamma (2.2) and the colorspace is Adobe 1998
RGB (not ideal for Web display, but I'm usually too lazy to change it to
sRGB, which would have a bit more "pop").