Mike wrote:
>>Thanks, it had been suggested to me to keep the images down to something
>>under 30K to allow for dial up connections
>>
>>
>>
>Jason, I have a slow connection and suggest anything under 100kb would
>be acceptable. I find that by first reducing the long side to 640 and
>then converting to a jpg using a setting of between 60-70 gives a decent
>quality image and usually comes in under the above mentioned 100kb.
>
Jason, I think you have many lovely compositions and some great colors,
but I can't really tell much more from the small, highly compressed
images. I keep clicking on the large thumbnails, only to be reminded
that there isn't anything bigger to view. My screen is set at 96dpi,
making Glencoe about 4x6 inches, which isn't bad, but the tonality in
the sky seem quite compromised by over compression. Most of the images
on your album pages are about 2x3 inches, large enough to whet my
appetite, but too small to really appreciate.
The upper limit Mike suggests on the end of his rusty wires, is about
the minimum size and quality I think gives any chance of really
appreciating photos. One of my big frustrations is seeing one of my
images full screen that just knocks me out and then looking at the poor,
tiny thing I have to post. TOPE now allows up to 800 pixels on the long
side, which I find a great improvement. I can much more fully appreciate
the images.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|