 | | Picture size
|
| What do you think is a good balace between file size (speed) and largest display (detail) of a jpeg photo on a website? Jude (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | 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)
| | | | | Re: Picture size
|
| (...) Agree, agree, agree, and agree. Just thought I'd put in that the only other concievable reason I could think of for pictures in excess of 800x600 would be for printing/photoediting purposes. But since that only occurrs once in a blue moon (IE (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
| | | | | Re: Picture size
|
| (...) Anything in excess of 640x480 is too big for most users. Screen size is not the only issue - consider also bandwidth. The file size grows exponentially as an image grows. (Twice the width = 4 times the size, 3x width = 9x size, etc.) (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
| |
