Photo Forum question

Status
Not open for further replies.
J

Jim Vincent

It just so happens, I posted a photo today and needed to ask phil,(god) a question. during the posting, instructions said photo needed to be 100k or less, my photo was 400k plus. i reduced it to 150k and thought that was OK since it was getting pretty small and losing detail and also judging by other photos, it seemed, as i said, OK. well after posting, i went back to view the article and found the photo so large, you can barely view a 1/4 of it without scrolling left or right or up or down!! was my problem the 100k rule?? ...be gentle!! Jim Vincent, Toucan
 

Phil Herring

Alien
Mar 25, 1997
4,923
- - Bainbridge Island
No, my son

;) Actually, the 100k dictates the speed at which the photo loads, but is not directly related to its 'size' relative to width and length. (BTW, 100k is simply a guideline - the system will accept anything.) The typical 14 inch monitor provides a viewing area that is 640x480 pixels. I think photos look best at about 450 pixels wide, which is about 6 inches. If you like email me a smaller photo and I'll upload it for you. Sermon over; no lightning required.
 

Phil Herring

Alien
Mar 25, 1997
4,923
- - Bainbridge Island
fixed photo

I don't know what I was thinking - I just downloaded thephoto off the site and reduced it. Two tips, though, for the future: 1. If you have any kind of choice about jpeg compression when you save the file in your photoeditor, use high compression. It doesn't hurt the photo all that much and chopped 125k off the file size. 2. Web servers don't like spaces and punctuation in file names. it's always best to run words together and avoid any kind of punctutation, except a period. thanks!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.