On Mon, 2 May 2016 09:48:57 +0100, "fredhogan" <fredhogan@nothere.com>
wrote:
>Rodney Reason wrote : I always prefer the original file. Though I think
>it's more of an OCD issue than a collecting philosophy. :)
>
>RR - very interesting indeed!
>
>going back to the original subject of 'alternatives' i suppose it goes
>without saying that - when i post a group of 12 pics + an index - that i am
>not posting *all* the pictures i have in that group. and it is very likely
>that i already also have copies of many alternatives of my own.
Sometimes your sets and indexes have included multiple copies
of individual images. Other times, only one. I didn't know
what that meant or if it meant anything.
>if i go to a folder for a particular set of pictures it is sometimes the
>case that it contains only a single picture - and is certainly often the
>case that it contains less than twelve pictures. but usually such folders
>contain more than twelve pictures - sometimes many, many more!
>
>it occurs to me now that it might be useful for me to post not just a set of
>pictures plus a set-index but also an index of the entire contents of my
>corresponding folder - yes - warts and all!
>
>to see the sort of mess that such a thing might show i have turned to a
>random folder - that for set YA562 as it happens - and attach the result
>now.
>
>i am surprised to see that that doesn't seem to me as useless as i thought
>it was going to be and so - yes - the next time i post details of a set i
>*will* include a full-folder index too. there will be plenty of scope there
>for *my* OCD issues to show themselves too!
I wasn't trying to change the way you post.
RR
|
|