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

["Alan Shaw" <brindabella@primus.com.au>]

I take a similar approach to that of John Dennis. On my web site currently
being developed, I wanted to present my images in a consistent manner. I
scan and then re-size all my images so that they are either 575 pixels wide
of 450 pixels high, depending on whether they are horizontal or vertical
format. At a screen resolution of 800 x 600 pixels, this gives a good sized
image on the screen plus leaving me room for a short caption. I then
compress the images to get a file size less than about 35kb. This gives me
what I think is an acceptable balance of images size and quality.

Obviously the answer to the question depends on screen resolution and for
people with higher resolution than 800 x 600 the images may look a bit small
on the screen. But statistics show that about two-thirds of all monitors are
set to that resolution so it's not a bad compromise.

Personally (and I stress personally!) I find it very frustrating when very
large images are posted on the web when it is not necessary. It also
ineveitably means that I have to scroll around the image which I find very
weird - when you view a photo in a book you can see the whole thing at once
so why should web users be expected to accept seeing only part of an image
at any one time? Still, whatever turns you on I guess.

Incidentally, Vincent Flanders on his Web Pages That Suck site (see
http://www.webpagesthatsuck.com ) suggests that the only two types of images
that people are prepared to wait indefinitely to download are of corpses and
porno!

Alan


David Lindstrom <D_Lindstrom@Bigpond.com> wrote in message
dX9M5.16304$e5.38932@newsfeeds.bigpond.com">news:dX9M5.16304$e5.38932@newsfeeds.bigpond.com...
> What's the file ideal file size of a jpeg or gif image on a web
> page? That is to say, one that looks okay, but doesn't take too
> long to download.
>
> --
> Regards,
> David Lindstrom
>
>