The House of ILFORD

[Simon R Galley]

Dear All,

A new service being offered by HARMAN technology Limited :

http://goo.gl/jH7rlp

Regards

Simon ILFORD Photo / HARMAN technology limited

 

[Cybertrash]

When I first read the title I thought you guys were starting a fashion design house... But this seems really cool, unfortunately I won't be able to purchase any prints... My own pictures I have on my wall would look so bad in comparison

 

[jovo]

Interesting idea, and a not-too-expensive way for someone to buy a print that would be both a reference photo and a piece of wall art.

 

[MattKing]

The House of Ilford website doesn't work properly in my Chrome web browser - the photo titles and photographers' names overlap.

It does seem to work in Firefox.

I'll pm Simon

 

[pbromaghin]

It works on my Chrome.

My oh my, those are nice. Cybertrash may be right.

 

[btaylor]

That's amazing. Real prints on Ilford paper at a very reasonable cost. More amazing would be to get them on fiber paper. But that would perhaps get too close to a gallery print. I'm going to spend some time on your new site.

 

[pentaxuser]

It works on my Chrome.QUOTE]

It still doesn't work on mine. It might depend on the definition of not working. On mine and it appears Matt's the only problem is that the photographer's name is intertwined with the title on the prints.

Do you mean that there is no intertwining on your view of The House of Ilford website? I have just checked my Chrome and it says it is up-to-date so I can't think of anything I can do to correct the issue

So, is yours completely OK ans if so I wonder what's wrong with mine and Matt's

pentaxuser

 

[Klainmeister]

Wow, what a great idea. Good for reference prints. Then I'll really know how bad my prints are!

 

[DREW WILEY]

Typical cutesy stuff that look like employee work in camera stores. But it sells cheaply enough. So why not?

 

[Klainmeister]

Such a high-minded opinion, you should become a member and share some of your work on here...

 

[jovo]

Typical cutesy stuff that look like employee work in camera stores. But it sells cheaply enough. So why not?

Oooooooh.....what a shabby, cheap shot! Despite your lack of credentials, I'm sure we all anticipate the enlightenment of your brilliance when you become a subscriber and post a few of your masterworks. Don't be surprised if we are too stunned by your originality and competence to comment. But, best wishes, of course.

 

[StoneNYC]

Oooooooh.....what a shabby, cheap shot! Despite your lack of credentials, I'm sure we all anticipate the enlightenment of your brilliance when you become a subscriber and post a few of your masterworks. Don't be surprised if we are too stunned by your originality and competence to comment. But, best wishes, of course.

+1

 

[StoneNYC]

This is really awesome! Very cool! (By invitation only) hmmm...

I didn't get my invitation though...

Must have gotten lost in the post...

 

[PKM-25]

Typical cutesy stuff that look like employee work in camera stores. But it sells cheaply enough. So why not?

LoL.....Drew, are you in CO or Washington state right now? I ask because it is fully legal to smoke it there ( here )....

 

[pbromaghin]

It works on my Chrome.QUOTE]

It still doesn't work on mine. It might depend on the definition of not working. On mine and it appears Matt's the only problem is that the photographer's name is intertwined with the title on the prints.

Do you mean that there is no intertwining on your view of The House of Ilford website? I have just checked my Chrome and it says it is up-to-date so I can't think of anything I can do to correct the issue

So, is yours completely OK ans if so I wonder what's wrong with mine and Matt's

pentaxuser

Yes, mine is completely ok. The website looks entirely normal. Google Chrome Help/about says:

Version 31.0.1650.57 m
Google Chrome is up to date.

 

[Truzi]

It seems to work fine on my browsers in Debian Linux stable (Wheezy):
- iceweasel 17.0.9 (this basically is Firefox)
- Chromium Version 29.0.1547.57 Built on Debian 7.1, running on Debian 7.2 (217859)
- Arora 0.11.0 WebKit version: 534.34

Also fine in Debian Linux testing (Jessie):
- iceweasel 17.0.9 (this basically is Firefox)
- Chromium Version 31.0.1650.57 on Debian jessie/sid (235101)

It's even navigable in Links 2 (v 2.7) using graphical mode, though the banner/home page link is difficult to determine; it is merely the clickable image "Individual art for your individual Home," (though it still works).

 

[Ken Nadvornick]

Typical cutesy stuff that look like employee work in camera stores. But it sells cheaply enough. So why not?

We need to take the longer view here. It's as simple as that.

Ken

 

[pentaxuser]

Yes, mine is completely ok. The website looks entirely normal. Google Chrome Help/about says:

Version 31.0.1650.57 m
Google Chrome is up to date.

Mine says it is exactly the same version that yours says but just checked again and the problem is still there. Very strange

pentaxuser

 

[MattKing]

It looks like there are links embedded at the locations on the page that are problematic.

 

[pentaxuser]

It looks like there are links embedded at the locations on the page that are problematic.

I am a complete computer ignoramus so be patient with me but if there are links on the page that are problematic what is it or might be, about using that same version of Chrome that can give me and you a problem when we look at that page but not the poster who reports no problems with exactly the same version?

pentaxuser