Liked by 43 users: abner123, albainthenet, alkesh, alofino, ampsfor, Andi k 100, angrydoorknob, anthropophagus, Atus, badbonez, badidea1000, BenPenney, Coby143, DorothyOfOz, Dr_Tim, eleanormargot, ElenaD, elmariachi60, frizzo, Gostar, j1a1m1e1s1, jagarmaster, james1069, keiyuri, Kerberos_, khixcax, listenerdave, Maddog_man, mofobiker, nanarnoyon, pedroc, renette007, ricoman, RobercikX, sadirak21, scumspawn, shaitan020, Simon, solight, ThorTheRock, todd2426, woodsman69, zzzago
Why are your webeweb sets so small? the originals were not that small.
Well, I can't speak for the OP, but I just had a look on Wayback and the sample images from her site (in 2005) were exactly the same size, 853 x 1280. I don't remember them being much bigger than this. This agrees with the exif info for the sample image.
EDIT:
Unless you're talking about the number of pics? In which case, as far as I can tell, her sets ranged from 30 odd to 80 odd pics, so 61 looks reasonable.
you are right! thank you for this explanation
Liked by 1 user: pedroc
reupload
reupload