large photos

["Philip Veerman" <>]

Thanks Janette for the hint. My belief is that big attachments should not be sent and that any photos should have some specific reason for coming through. Most don't take too long but some do. The photo of Long-billed Corellas at a nest hole, sent on 11 August clogged my intray for one hour and 37 minutes, whilst being received. During which time I couldn't do much else. Sure it was a very nice photo, and it provided evidence of a very worthwhile record and the contributor obviously had not realised that it was such a big file and did quickly send an apology. However I think (and others may think differently) that the point about Long-billed Corellas at a nest hole would have been made just as well with a sentence of text. A photo is not required with that level of urgency. (I already have a photo of the species in a book.) The photo could have gone to the Rarities Panel if needed or shown at a COG meeting or the message say that a photo is available on request. If the message had arrived as text, then instead of waiting an hour and a half for my computer to receive it, I could have gotten in my car and gone to see these birds for myself and almost be back home, in the time it took for my computer to download the photo. I know which I would prefer.

 

Philip