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

["Dave Proctor" <daproc@spambait.ozemail.com.au>]

"James Brook" <ajmbrook@ozemail.com.au> wrote in message
3A07E446.C823701D@ozemail.com.au">news:3A07E446.C823701D@ozemail.com.au...
> Dave Proctor wrote:
> >
> > And I think you are wrong. If it is purely an image, it should display
> > *fully* in the normal screen size, i.e. 800x600 (although taking a bit
off
> > for browser borders, etc). Choosing to display it higher shows a degree
of
> > arrogance, IMNSHO.
>
> BTW, I think this paragraph of yours shows how arrogant you are.

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.

> 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.

> You think that everyone runs their computers with the same settings that
> you have.

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.

> You think that the only correctly sized images are the ones
> that fit in the browser with your desktop settings.

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

> Whether you like it
> or not, there is no right or wrong in this case.

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.

> 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.

> In your case, you run your desktop at 800x600
> and you only want to look at them in your browser.

Exactly - so provide that to me.

> Other people may want
> to use them as a Win9x background or they may be looking for photos that
> they can look at properly in their browser running at 1024x768.

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.

> For your purposes, my images are not the ideal ones.

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.

> For someone else's purposes,
> my images might be just what they are looking for. I am not saying that
> a 50kb jpeg is wrong. All I am saying is that it can't be used for
> anything other than viewing on the screen and I prefer a larger image.

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.

> It all comes down to what the individual prefers as there is no right
> and wrong.

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

Dave