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

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

Dave Proctor wrote:
> 
> > If you don't like my site, then don't look at it.
> 
> I don't, mainly due to your refusal to make pics a size that can be easily
> viewed.

So what if you don't look at it, I don't expect everyone to look at my
site. Anyway, my site is not just a photographic archive. It also
contains a lot of other information which is designed to be viewed at
800x600.

>
> > You're calling me arrogant?
> 
> Yes.

This is an arrogant style of comment.

> 
> > Just look at your attitude.
> 
> Mild compared to yours. I do not expect people to change their computer's
> settings to view my site, I make it so that it fits into just about
> everyone's screens.
> 

Your attitude is that I must change all my photos just to suit exactly
what you want. Obviously you aren't interested in high quality photos,
which is fair enough. I have designed the photographic section for those
people who are interested in high quality photos. I'm not forcing you to
download my photos, but they are there if you ever want high quality
Victorian images for personal non-profit use.

>
> > I know a lot of
> > people that view my photos, so it works both ways. I suppose you think
> > everyone should do exactly what you want.
> 
> No - I am saying that web designers should work to the lowest common
> denominator.
>

The site is designed for 800x600. As for the photos, I am taking the
attitude that if people really want them for personal non-profit use,
they will save them anyway. When you view them in the browser, it is
like a preview before you decide if it is worth keeping.
 
> 
> I don't know what your pics look like, since they are too big to view
> comfortably.

The thumbnails give a clear indication of what the photos are. If you
read my post earlier today, you will notice that I have come up with a
compromise for the full size images. I am open to comments or
suggestions on this compromise.

> 
> > It's not that hard to change resolutions for a short time,
> 
> Why should we have to?

Why should I reduce the quality of my images?

> 
> Just as making your pics smaller is a way of viewing them without having to
> save them.

And then they are useless for anything else.

> 
> And my brothers computer will not change resolutions without rebooting (it
> is old, I admit) - why should he have to either: upgrade his computer; or
> waste two phone calls (connect after rebooting to view, then reconnect after
> rebooting again)?
> 

If his computer is that old, then he wouldn't have any need for high
quality photos would he? If I was the only site providing images of
Victoria's railways, then I could understand your frustration. However,
there are plenty of other railfans out there providing good images that
suit your needs. I am aiming my site at those who have desktops of
800x600 or higher and want good quality images for personal use. If you
have actually looked at my site, you would notice that I provide 400x300
video captures in the news section. These are often similar to the high
quality pics in the photographic section and they are designed for quick
and easy viewing.

> >
> > The pages are designed for 800x600 or higher.
> 
> Web designers mostly design for 800x600 (no higher).
> 

My pages >>>> ARE <<<< designed for 800x600 as this is what I run my
computer at. (sorry about the shouting everyone else)
  
  
-- 
- James Brook -

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