Subject:
|
Picture size
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 14:37:57 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1132 times
|
| |
|
|
What do you think is a good balace between file size (speed) and largest
display (detail) of a jpeg photo on a website?
Jude
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: Picture size
|
| (...) I think you can show good detail with an image of 80 to 120 KB, but it depends on the picture. Some look better/worse than others. On my website, I limit my big, detailed pics to 120 KB max. That's just my preference. TJ p.s. I use dial-up :-( (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Picture size
|
| (...) I typically do 640x480 or smaller, with a fairly heavy jpeg compression (usually 30 to 50%) so my images fall in the 30-60K range. I prefer to keep them a little smaller and sacrifice a little bit of quality, then have them over 80K and chew (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | Re: Picture size
|
| (...) I go for 800x600 or smaller generally. Sometimes a large picture is worthwhile, but if you are including the pictures in-line in a website, you might want to have a smaller picture with a link to the big one. Cropping is one of the best ways (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
