Web picture size

[Elton]

Peter Sharpe:

This forum is often full of examples of how not to post web photos. Some of them are so big that I have to give up trying to open the thread - or am I the last person in the UK who isn't on broadband?

I'm on ISDN at work - broadband going in on the 30th.

 

However, I know what you mean - some of them are 3megs or more and of immense proportions. If it means me scrolling right, I generally don't bother looking. Time management, and all that

[limestone]

Generally speaking, jpg's are for photos, gif's (or png's) for drawings/icons/text etc.

 

Most graphics software will let you resize photos, and many will let you specify jpg output quality. Try around 60% for web photos, usually a nice balance of quality and small file size.

 

Setting output dimensions in html via the <img> tag doesn't change the underlying file size, just the dimensions on screen. A really nice way to show pictures is to have a thumbnail (small sample image) of, say 160px wide, and show underneath it links to a medium size image 640px wide, and a full size image. A page of such thumbnails should load reasonably well, even on dialup. Giving dimensions and file sizes allows people to choose what's best for their screen size and connection speed.

 

[ 17. March 2005, 09:04 PM: Message edited by: limestone ]