On 9/28/05, ScottGee1 <scottgee1@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> IMO, all this is an issue only if images posted to the Web are going
> to be reproduced elsewhere on the Internet. A file correctly sized
> for the Web (relatively low resolution with high compression) is
> pretty much limited to screen viewing. If someone tries to print it
> they'll be sorely disappointed. Also, in my experience, such files
> are are real pain to edit as they have very few pixels available.
Exactly. My site's largest files are 600x400, decent size for screen
viewing but that's about it. I used to have 1200x800 images but took
them down because they were taking up too much space. Plus that is
getting a little too big for web purposes and is getting closer to the
size you'd need to use them for other things (like printing).
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|