"My first 'big' job" posted on abpw

[NorthIdahoWWer]

See what you think. :-)

Will

[Lew Hodgett]

I don't even think about trying to open files that large.

Lew

[NorthIdahoWWer]

[Greg O]

Size of the pic is fine, size of the file sucks. Try shrinking the file size by reducing the quality of the pic, few people will see the difference. Check the post again, I resized the pics. Greg

[Kevin Craig]

640x480 is NOT "standard size". There are lots of people out there for whom that is full screen. The next standard size up is 1024x768, and even for those folks, 640x480 is too large to enjoy.

I can't speak for others, but I don't have dialup; I have DSL at 768K down. And what you posted, while so-so pics of work in progress, is HUGE!

If you need numbers, your two-pic post was 15,861 lines long. If you'd cropped the pics to only show the relevant portion, and then resized to no more than 400 pixels wide, and then "optimized for web" (or whatever similar option your software allows), your picture would have been only

1/4 that size. Still not tiny, but all in your session.

Kevin

[George E. Cawthon]

Let' see. 640 x 480 is 307,200 and 2 pictures make it over 614 KB. Actually your post was over 900 KB which for a dial up takes 10 minutes or more to load.

Fortunately Greg O resized it to about 112 KB Many of us have dial up and I personally won't load anything over 500KB unless I am really interested.

[Edwin Pawlowski]

Thanks to Greg O resizing them, I did look at the photos. Very nice. I like the contrast against the white. I'd dread the time it comes to repaint the white, but it should last years.

[Hax Planks]

Those are huge for 640x480 jpg's. They could be 1/5 that size with no noticeable loss in quality.

[CW]

Opens in less than a second for me. My thoughts on large files is that those that don't like it don't have to open it.

[NorthIdahoWWer]

I had saved the pics at 200dpi RGB. Maybe 120 or so woulda been better? I didn't realize the file size was so big until after the first complaint. My apologies.

Will

[Joseph Connors]

It amazing, so many responses to this post and yet only 1 dealt with the subject matter! All this bandwidth being taken up complaining about bandwidth being taken up!

Lew Hodgett wrote:

[Edwin Pawlowski]

What does your address?

[Ba r r y]

I didn't even know it was large until others complained.

Barry

[Greg O]

Who was complaining about bandwidth? I saw only complaints of large file sizes. As I see it, it has nothing to do with bandwidth, but with people being able to see the post. Hell I am on cable and I often will not open a file that large until someone else comments on it. Dial up users will probably never open a file that large. My question is, if you are posting pictures , you want people to see them, why not post ~100K or less? Many people will not bother with large files. Not to pick on the OP, but with my resize the pics were slightly smaller, not even noticeably smaller, but yet the file size was 1/7(?) the size. Picture quality was so close to the OP probably no one could tell the difference, but yet more people would see the pic. Please be "user friendly" and keep posts smaller! More people will see and enjoy your posts. Greg

[Edwin Pawlowski]

In most cases I think it is a question of "don't know" rather than "don't care". I bought a scanner some years back. Scanned and sent a photo to my son (we were both on dial up) and did not realize it was about 1 Meg. I learned real fast. Instructions with digital cameras emphasize taking photos more than file sizes.

Personally, I don't often dl large files even though on DSL it is much faster than waiting for a page to appear on Compu-Serve with a 2400 baud modem.

[firstjois]

Ditto.

Josie