news

A NYC photoblog that I like is very specific, but very amusing: Shiny, Pointy, and Tall

It's pictures of people taking pictures of the Chrysler Building. Enjoy!

OOOPS! My "less than" sign in the previous post was reinterpreted as part of a tag.

Make that "I'm trying to limit my pics to less than 70 k."

Pixels are one thing, but much of the US is still on dial-up. I'm trying to limit my pics to

Hey guys can I be in the club too???

Jake: Another possible reason for the proliferation of one-image-at-a-time sites is that they're easy to do in MT. Nice survey! Have an honorary doctorate.

I like this photoblog because he seems to see a colorful side to NYC:

www.greentrabant.blogspot.com

Could you maybe feature a different pic each day from the many NYC photobloggers?

www.gothamish.com - there's mine. You used a name like mine, I made my logo like yours. It's homage, be flattered! Great work promoting bloggers on your site, love it.

Well, that was a snub.

Pic Patrol is somehow banned by Jake, so the URL is for a non-defunct URL that is redirecting to Pic Patrol.

viva (la) nepotism? weak!

as it turns out, i met J&J because they linked to my site... ah yes, that was back in the day when gothamist was still wee and i was looking for an information source to satiate my need for photoblogger, panda and law&order news... ;-)

like conan says: "don't Hate! just Luuuuuuvvv, baby!"

There are still some people out there with their resolution set at 800 pixels wide. If you want to be considerate of them, I wouldn't go beyond 700 pixeks wide for the entire page (the browser eats some of those pixels up).

i think the bigger the better- die, bandwidth, die! i try to keep bluejake's pix in the middle of the size range, because i post 8 per day, and because the bluejake bandwidth eats at gothamist's bandwidth. but i figure by next year i'll be up somewhere around 650px wide, from this year's 585px wide.

Thanks for dropping the science, Jake! Let the haters troll elsewhere. The question now is how big is too big? Does a photo lose its context and message when you need to scroll to see it in its entirety?

jeeze, to think that i just went to 450 wide with the pictures on my site (which is not a photoblog). i'm so slow to adapt.

Mike -- don't cut back on the number of shots!

I can't speak for broadband-challenged visitors, but scrolling through a group of related shots at sites like yours and Jake's is a big part of the charm.

(Though hey! Did Eliot (slower.net) start posting only a shot a day??)

You can investigate my blog if you like, but a FAR more deserving one is joe's nyc.

Thanks for the link Jake!

Mike fight the trend, add more to your front page, bandwidth be damn.

K, I'll fight you for it.

This has shamed me into (again) reducing the number of entries on the front page.

Quantity over quality!

Beautiful, dramatic picture featured in this post. great find.

I so totally win.