Size of the pic is fine, size of the file sucks. Try shrinking the file size
by reducing the quality of the pic, few people will see the difference.
Check the post again, I resized the pics.
Greg
"NorthIdahoWWer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That large? It's 2 pics, 640x480, standard size for emailing/newsgroup.
> You must have dialup.
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>> NorthIdahoWWer wrote:
>> > See what you think. :-)
>>
>>
>> I don't even think about trying to open files that large.
>>
>> Lew
>>
>>
>
>
"Joseph Connors" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It amazing, so many responses to this post and yet only 1 dealt with the
> subject matter! All this bandwidth being taken up complaining about
> bandwidth being taken up!
>
>
Who was complaining about bandwidth? I saw only complaints of large file
sizes. As I see it, it has nothing to do with bandwidth, but with people
being able to see the post. Hell I am on cable and I often will not open a
file that large until someone else comments on it. Dial up users will
probably never open a file that large.
My question is, if you are posting pictures , you want people to see them,
why not post ~100K or less? Many people will not bother with large files.
Not to pick on the OP, but with my resize the pics were slightly smaller,
not even noticeably smaller, but yet the file size was 1/7(?) the size.
Picture quality was so close to the OP probably no one could tell the
difference, but yet more people would see the pic.
Please be "user friendly" and keep posts smaller! More people will see and
enjoy your posts.
Greg
In article <[email protected]>, NorthIdahoWWer
<[email protected]> wrote:
> That large? It's 2 pics, 640x480, standard size for emailing/newsgroup.
> You must have dialup.
640x480 is NOT "standard size". There are lots of people out there for
whom that is full screen. The next standard size up is 1024x768, and
even for those folks, 640x480 is too large to enjoy.
I can't speak for others, but I don't have dialup; I have DSL at 768K
down. And what you posted, while so-so pics of work in progress, is
HUGE!
If you need numbers, your two-pic post was 15,861 lines long. If you'd
cropped the pics to only show the relevant portion, and then resized to
no more than 400 pixels wide, and then "optimized for web" (or whatever
similar option your software allows), your picture would have been only
1/4 that size. Still not tiny, but all in your session.
Kevin
Opens in less than a second for me. My thoughts on large files is that those
that don't like it don't have to open it.
"NorthIdahoWWer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> That large? It's 2 pics, 640x480, standard size for emailing/newsgroup.
> You must have dialup.
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > NorthIdahoWWer wrote:
> > > See what you think. :-)
> >
> >
> > I don't even think about trying to open files that large.
> >
> > Lew
> >
> >
>
>
Ba r r y wrote:
>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:50:53 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Opens in less than a second for me.
>>
>> I didn't even know it was large until others complained. <G>
>>
>> Barry
Ditto.
Josie
That large? It's 2 pics, 640x480, standard size for emailing/newsgroup.
You must have dialup.
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> NorthIdahoWWer wrote:
> > See what you think. :-)
>
>
> I don't even think about trying to open files that large.
>
> Lew
>
>
"NorthIdahoWWer" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> See what you think. :-)
>
> Will
>
>
Thanks to Greg O resizing them, I did look at the photos. Very nice. I like
the contrast against the white. I'd dread the time it comes to repaint the
white, but it should last years.
"Joseph Connors" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> It amazing, so many responses to this post and yet only 1 dealt with the
> subject matter! All this bandwidth being taken up complaining about
> bandwidth being taken up!
>
>
What does your address?
"Greg O" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> My question is, if you are posting pictures , you want people to see them,
> why not post ~100K or less? Many people will not bother with large files.
> Not to pick on the OP, but with my resize the pics were slightly smaller,
> not even noticeably smaller, but yet the file size was 1/7(?) the size.
> Picture quality was so close to the OP probably no one could tell the
> difference, but yet more people would see the pic.
> Please be "user friendly" and keep posts smaller! More people will see and
> enjoy your posts.
> Greg
In most cases I think it is a question of "don't know" rather than "don't
care". I bought a scanner some years back. Scanned and sent a photo to my
son (we were both on dial up) and did not realize it was about 1 Meg. I
learned real fast. Instructions with digital cameras emphasize taking
photos more than file sizes.
Personally, I don't often dl large files even though on DSL it is much
faster than waiting for a page to appear on Compu-Serve with a 2400 baud
modem.
It amazing, so many responses to this post and yet only 1 dealt with the
subject matter! All this bandwidth being taken up complaining about
bandwidth being taken up!
Lew Hodgett wrote:
> NorthIdahoWWer wrote:
>
>> See what you think. :-)
>
>
>
> I don't even think about trying to open files that large.
>
> Lew
>
>
NorthIdahoWWer wrote:
> That large? It's 2 pics, 640x480, standard size for emailing/newsgroup.
> You must have dialup.
>
> "Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>NorthIdahoWWer wrote:
>>
>>>See what you think. :-)
>>
>>
>>I don't even think about trying to open files that large.
>>
>>Lew
>>
>>
>
>
>
Let' see. 640 x 480 is 307,200 and 2 pictures make
it over 614 KB. Actually your post was over 900
KB which for a dial up takes 10 minutes or more to
load.
Fortunately Greg O resized it to about 112 KB
Many of us have dial up and I personally won't
load anything over 500KB unless I am really
interested.
On Sun, 27 Mar 2005 08:50:53 -0800, "CW" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Opens in less than a second for me.
I didn't even know it was large until others complained. <G>
Barry