Re: [OT] ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image

[James Brook <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au>]

Dave Proctor wrote:
> 
> 
> And I think that paragraph I am interrupting shows how arrogant youa re.
> 
> I think that you should make your pics accessible to everyone. you think
> that people should modify their computers to suit your whims.
> 

My website is targeted at railfans. By your logic, I shouldn't use
railfan terminology so everyone can understand it. For that matter, what
about the problem of different languages. By your logic, I should be
providing mirrors of my site in every language on the planet to make it
accessible to everyone. I am providing photos for people who want high
quality, not for people who just want to view a bunch of low quality
happy snaps of the local choo choo.

> > Your
> > attitude is that you are right and everyone else is automatically wrong.
> 
> No - I am saying that you are wrong by refusing to go along with what are
> net standards.
> 

Who says that a high quality image for personal use outside the browser
goes against standards? If the main purpose of my images was for viewing
inside a browser, then you may have a point. However, I am providing
images that can be used for other personal non-profit uses.

> 
> No - I am saying that not everyone is willing or able to change their
> settings at the whim of the wbmaster of the site they are currently
> visitting.
> 

Which is why I am now adding HTML. It is a fair comment, but changing
the resolution is a way to view images that don't display fully in the
browser. Ever since I created my site I only intended the browser to be
a preview of what you were looking at, before you saved it for personal
non-profit use.

> 
> No, I am saying that different sites currently use different settings, and
> if everyone used net standards, it would all make things 300% easier.
> 

So get over it, I use a different set of standards to you. There is no
right or wrong.

> 
> Whether you like it or not, 800x600 is the net standard. You are the one
> going against the trend, and you do so at the risk of losing traffic to your
> site. Whether this is a problem to you is your concern. I don't give a FRF,
> as I won't go there until you comply with net standards.
>

Big deal, don't go to my site if you don't like it. I'm not forcing you
to look at it. I am getting about 50 - 150 hits per day, and this is
steadily growing.

> > It depends on what you want to use the photo for.
> 
> I want to look at it and enjoy it for what it is. Somethign that does not
> need a 300KB pic to do on a pic sized at 1200x 800.
> 

Like I said, you are not my target audience, get over it.

> 
> Exactly - so provide that to me.
> 

How arrogant, demanding that I satisfy his whims.

> 
> And I am running at 1024x768 - but I still want the pics to load properly.
> Your arrogance is astounding, providing for only those who wish to "use"
> your pics, as opposed to those who wish to "view" your pics. I could easily
> look at 100 pics per day, and if they were all normal sized pics (i.e. 40KB)
> that would amount to about 4.2MB - but based on your criteria (that they be
> able to be used for whatever purpose) that would amount to 42MB - a huge
> difference. All I am asking for is that you provide us with a choice, so
> that those of us who only wish to look (but not use) can do so without
> downloading huge amounts of useless data we do not need. To force us to do
> so is arrogance.

I have said all along that you should go to another site if you just
want to view low quality pics. I am not forcing you to download mine.
Anyway, I also provide video captures, which suit your needs. Stop
whingeing and just look at those if you don't want to look at any high
quality pics on my site. You don't have to go to the photographic
section if you don't want to.

> 
> Ok, name some other photographers who were in the same place at the same
> time, who have published on line, and I will use them instead.
> 

In other words, you are saying my photos are good, but they aren't
displayed exactly as you like them. Now you are going to keep whingeing
until I decide to bow to your brilliance and provide the photos exactly
the way you want them.

> 
> So publish all three - a 5KB thumbnal, a 25KB image, and a 300KB image - the
> extra 25KB is not going to make a difference, and if you have enough images
> where it would (for ALL of the images) then you probably need to pruen your
> collection anyway.
> 

I have already "pruned" my collection significantly from what it used to
be. If you don't like the high quality photos, just go to the video
captures. These are 400x300 50kb jpegs and most of them were taken at
the same location as my other photos. If there is something in the main
photographic section you really want to look at, then I don't see a
minute per image is going to kill you, especially as you can do
something else while it downloads.

> 
> There is when it comes to what is accepted practice and what isn't.
> 

You think accepted practice is exactly what you demand.

-- 
- James Brook -

----------------------------------------------------------------
e-mail:     
mailto:ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au
Victorian Railfan Web Site:    
http://www.railpage.org.au/vr/
----------------------------------------------------------------