This is one of the most incredible photos I’ve ever seen in the newspaper.

This is one of the most incredible photos I’ve ever seen in the newspaper.

donohoe:

Ochs with Large Photos & Illustrations
TLDR; - You can programatically adjust NYTimes image URLs to get larger 1024x[Variable Height] versions - Ochs, a Google Chrome Extension for NYTimes, now takes advantage of this.
I’ve updated the Ochs extension to use the largest image available on Article pages.
So…
I’m a big fan of the beautiful photographs and illustrations I see every day in The New York Times.
Here are just a few I’ve bookmarked over the last year.
Amazing work, no?
However the biggest image you’ll ever see on nytimes.com is 600 pixels wide with a variable height (usually between 350px and 460px). This will be on the Article page or sometimes a popup link from the Article-Inline area.

Now click the image and you’ll see the 1024 by 883 pixel version in a new tab.
Nice, right?
There are exceptions to this, on the LENS blog, T Magazine tumblr and maybe a few others…
When you look at these ‘exceptions’ you can really appreciate the power of a large image. Its part of the reason the Big Picture blog is so popular. You often see smaller, column friendly sized photographs. Their reduction, in my personal opinion, often means a reduction in impact. A measured approach is often necessary, but not always.
I welcome feedback on whether this works for you. Usually people only provide feedback if they don’t like something so if you think its a keeper then make sure you let me know.
The plan, time permitting, is to allow you to toggle between the standard size and this larger version via an option that appears in the top-right corner of the photo. This state is remembered across all pages unless you change it again.
You can install (or update) Ochs here.


This is soooooo great

donohoe:

Ochs with Large Photos & Illustrations

TLDR;
- You can programatically adjust NYTimes image URLs to get larger 1024x[Variable Height] versions
- Ochs, a Google Chrome Extension for NYTimes, now takes advantage of this.

I’ve updated the Ochs extension to use the largest image available on Article pages.

So…

I’m a big fan of the beautiful photographs and illustrations I see every day in The New York Times.

Here are just a few I’ve bookmarked over the last year.

Amazing work, no?

However the biggest image you’ll ever see on nytimes.com is 600 pixels wide with a variable height (usually between 350px and 460px). This will be on the Article page or sometimes a popup link from the Article-Inline area.

Now click the image and you’ll see the 1024 by 883 pixel version in a new tab.

Nice, right?

There are exceptions to this, on the LENS blog, T Magazine tumblr and maybe a few others…

When you look at these ‘exceptions’ you can really appreciate the power of a large image. Its part of the reason the Big Picture blog is so popular. You often see smaller, column friendly sized photographs. Their reduction, in my personal opinion, often means a reduction in impact. A measured approach is often necessary, but not always.

I welcome feedback on whether this works for you. Usually people only provide feedback if they don’t like something so if you think its a keeper then make sure you let me know.

The plan, time permitting, is to allow you to toggle between the standard size and this larger version via an option that appears in the top-right corner of the photo. This state is remembered across all pages unless you change it again.

You can install (or update) Ochs here.

This is soooooo great

Tags: nytimes

"An article on Monday about Jack Robinson and Kirsten Lindsmith, two college students with Asperger syndrome who are navigating the perils of an intimate relationship, misidentified the character from the animated children’s TV show “My Little Pony” that Ms. Lindsmith said she visualized to cheer herself up. It is Twilight Sparkle, the nerdy intellectual, not Fluttershy, the kind animal lover."

— From this week’s New York Times. Sorry, Bronies, she’s taken. (h/t Paul Johnson)

"

The most remarkable attribute Krugman has brought to the Times is rudeness. The social niceties that accompany his exalted position are utterly lost on him. He does not seek out the company of famous politicians and cannot be courted with flattery or access. He understands that you can’t arrive at truth without explaining why mistaken beliefs are wrong.

Krugman makes a mockery of the prohibition against arguing with his fellow columnists, larding his columns with rebuttals to unnamed subjects who happen to believe things that were advocated on the Times op-ed page earlier in the week. Thomas Friedman writes a column complaining, “Does anyone know what President Obama’s preferred outcome is? Exactly which taxes does he want raised, and which spending does he want cut?” And the next day, Krugman writes: “Oh, and let me give a special shout-out to ‘centrist’ pundits who won’t admit that President Obama has already given them what they want. The dialogue seems to go like this. Pundit: ‘Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?’ Mr. Obama: ‘I support a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes.’ Pundit: ‘Why won’t the president come out for a mix of spending cuts and tax hikes?’ ”

"

Because Paul Krugman Didn’t Keep His Calm - Reasons to Love New York 2011 — New York Magazine. Two responses:

Re: the first paragraph. If what you’re about is “explaining why mistaken beliefs are wrong,” then you’re not trying to “arrive at truth”: you believe you already possess it. Also, the characteristic Krugman argument is, roughly, “Your argument is wrong because it’s mistaken,” or, when he wants to change things up, “Your argument is mistaken because it’s wrong.”

Re: the second paragraph, note that Krugman’s response to Friedman — if that’s what it is — is a non-response. Friedman asked which taxes the President wants to raise, and which spending he wants to cut — and Krugman doesn’t answer either question. If Krugman had Friedman in mind, then he managed to bluster his way past questions he didn’t have answers to. This too is typical Krugman.

In brief, the more rudely Krugman behaves, the more likely it is that he lacks substantive arguments. (This is equally true of almost every other pundit I can think of, with the possible exception of Christopher Hitchens.) If that’s the kind of thing you want to celebrate, New York, knock yourself out, I guess.

(via ayjay)

Really? Krugman’s point was questions like Friedman’s were stupid. With only so many words in a NYT op-ed column, why would he waste them answering a stupid question? 

(via pegobry)

"Frank Bruni is going to be so embarrassed when he finds out these Facebook vacation photo captions were, in fact, printed in the opinion section of the world’s most influential newspaper!"

Hamilton Nolan’s is as good an explanation as any. I tend to think something like an ill-fated mushroom trip before the switch to op-ed addled dude’s mind. 

"The scent is … meant to mimic the aroma of black ink on newsprint." So necessary. (h/t Nate)
"

After laying out all the various new initiatives at the company last Tuesday night, including a global music site built on social media, Mr. Smith set aside modesty and profanity for a brief moment.

“We are building out the next MTV,” he said.

"

David Carr’s story on Vice and VBS.tv. I didn’t realize Spike Jones joined up with the TV side as creative director. They do some dope stuff. Shit, I would invest in those dudes, even if they do seem a little shady with hints of Dov Charneyism.

"I don’t think it’s too much to suggest that to the industry, David Carr is the battle-hardened face of The New York Times, that kind of zealous convert every clerical magisterium (and the top of the Times masthead is a sort of Vatican) wishes for but could never intentionally create. He is its most important champion."

Capital New York, from a long feature on my favorite reporter David Carr and Page One, the New York Times movie