Okay, here goes an attempt to share a picture. First, with a URL link:

Church and St. Louis University

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 01, 2002

Answers

The first one works.. but you must be missing a 'close command' '>' of some kind - your name becomes part of the clickable URL.

I've copied all of tony's commands to my 'scrapbook' (Mac) so I never have to type in the HTML - I just drag and drop and then paste in the URL links between the "-" marks where appropriate.

What I CAN"T do is put in 'sample HTML' to show what it should look like without it becoming active - and in my case, dangerous!!

-- Andy Piper (apidens@denver.infi.net), April 01, 2002.

I think the HTML problem was just a typo. Bob typed a/ rather than /a when closing the link tag.

The picture suffers greatly from the loss of shadow detail that comes from jpeg compression and web browser image engines. I can see that there is detail there that probably makes the slide work, but on the web, those details aren't really distinct enough to draw my attention.

-- Mike Dixon (mike@mikedixonphotography.com), April 01, 2002.

It looks like objects (eg., lights) in the foreground and background are sharper than the church in the middle. Obviously this is an artefact of how the image was electronically processed. I agree with Mike about the lack of shadow detail, which would greatly imporve the image and make it appear more "three-dimensional".

-- Eliot (erosen@lij.edu), April 01, 2002.

Hi, Bob:

Sure Mike is right but I enjoyed your photo. Composition seems right to me and I think that it is the most difficult ability to master.

Keep posting !

-Iván

-- Iván Barrientos M (ingenieria@simltda.tie.cl), April 01, 2002.

Thanks for all the help & comments so far. I didn't even know that shodow detail is lost in the process of posting. In fact, I didn't even know jpg compression existed. My best guess is that the photo was as much the problem as any of that. It was deliberately underexposed in order to create a sihlouette effect.

So here comes (maybe) an unoriginal but lower-contrast vacation shot (Alley Spring in southern Missouri), attempting this time to make it appear without needing a link:

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 01, 2002.

Hmmm. Well, they laughed at Edison. I'll try it the other way.

ALLEY SPRING FALL COLORS

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 01, 2002.

Okay, I'm not giving up:

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 01, 2002.

Now I'm giving up. I'd rather do this with Photo.Net, but I kept getting a message telling me there was an error, no picture available; and a message about PhotoNet not being compatible with IE version 3. I dunno what version I have. I right-clicked on everything I could find, and it didn't tell me.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 01, 2002.

Bob,

You had it right except for an artificial carriage return probably from word wrap.

If this works correctly (fingers & toes crossed) you can see the HTML syntax in IE Explorer by clicking on "View" on the top toolbar and selecting "Source". That will probably open this page up in Notepad and show all the HTML text. Just maximize the Notepad window and scroll down to the link. In Netscape you can do the same thing except it opens the webpage as text in Netscape's own text viewer.

-- Tod Hart (g_t_hart@lycos.com), April 01, 2002.

Hmm.... I think I see the problem. The posting window is only 70 spaces wide. If the "img src" syntax is longer than that, it forces a word wrap, which breaks the syntax contenuity. The webpage then doesn't recognize it as a proper link. So I suspect if the URL of the image you're trying to link to exceeds 70 spaces, including the "<", ">" and "img src=", the only way to link to it may be by using the text link "a href=" syntax instead.

-- Tod Hart (g_t_hart@lycos.com), April 01, 2002.

-- Richard (richard@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

Bob, the site that you hosted the image on doesn't allow external viewing of the image (that is, you have to actually be on the Epson site to view the image). Thus you get the nice little "image not available" graphic you see above.

As for the image, it seems like a really dark scan.

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

I got cut off. It seems like a dark scan. If you were going for a sillouette than I would have underexposed more and really made it a sillouette. Or I would have gone the opposite way and opened up more so the details in the buildings can be seen better (though I guess that would have been at the expense of overexposing the sky).

-- Richard (rvle@yahoo.com), April 01, 2002.

Once again, thanks for all the help. Looks like I've taken this as far as it can go without finding out how to get my images onto Photo.Net. I knew I should have bought a MAC.

Thanks again, everyone.

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), April 01, 2002.