[Boatanchors] picture

[Rob Atkinson]

I'm okay with photos BUT the problem I see is that we will have hams
unknowingly sending HUGE files without bothering to insure the photo
file is reasonably small.  QRZ.com automatically reduces photo file
sizes on any uploaded for a ham's qrz.com page and we would need
something similar.  Otherwise, some guy would send out a photo that's
10 Mb and my poor cheap-ham DSL connection would sit there grinding
away for 10 minutes--I would not like that.
Not all of us are blowing $60, $90 / month on a high speed cable
connection--some of us cheeeep hams are still on < 100 Kb lines.  My
brother had a penchant  for sending me huge photo files from his
iPhone (he is on cable) until I persuaded him to stop--it was pretty
annoying.

73

Rob
K5UJ


On Fri, Aug 1, 2014 at 9:58 PM, WA5CAB--- via Boatanchors
<boatanchors at mailman.qth.net> wrote:
> I disagree.  Allowing unconditional quantities of photos is a waste of time
> and space.  Especially as most of them are made with dumb phones and are
> out of focus.  Plus in the very rare case where the photo is actually of
> interest (not of some guy's civilian hamshack, which I could care less about), it
> is inconvenient to not possible to save the photo for future use or
> reference.  Photos uploaded to an accessible (doesn't require setting up an account
> with) website are easy to look at and to save if worth saving.
>