On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 10:03:19 -0600, dpb wrote:

On 12/30/2015 7:17 PM, Ignoramus24626 wrote:
...

I did consider this very deeply.

I very strongly believe in high resolution and quality of video and
images. 320 pixel videos make me cringe.

I feel that on most websites with pictures, the pictures are way too
small to be useful. They are economizing on bytes that cost next
to nothing, at the expense of clarity and ability to zoom in.
...

But certainly it's a cost to those of us who otherwise might look at
'em, if that's your intent. If they're there only for your
entertainment, so be it, but I quit at about 1/8-th of the way thru as
even w/ my wireless connection it was going to be several minutes to see
even one full image. There can't be that much useful info in a snapshot
of a smoker, sorry.

FWIW, my 60 Mb Internet connection downloads the largest of those
photos in a little less than two seconds.

The image size issue is something we wrestle with all the time in
online magazines. At Fab Shop, we use an underlying PDF file, so our
photos are JPEG-compressed like hell.

There are two schools of thought: One is to juggle things to try to
accomodate people with slow connections. The other is, if they have a
slow connection, it's not worth it to lower quality for everyone else
just to accomodate the others. If your intended readers are serious
businesspeople, they almost certainly have the fastest connection that
they can get. Surveys in the publishing business have indicated this.

Iggy's photos look like they're straight out of the camera (16 MP) and
highest-quality JPEG, at around 5 MB, which is typical for the very
slight JPEG compression that most cameras apply internally. Ig, you
can squash the file size down a lot by using a medium-quality JPEG
compression in Photoshop, GIMP, or whatever you use,, while leaving
the image size alone. As it is, I can count the veins in the maple
leaves on the ground. That's a little more than you need. g You
really have to stomp on photos like that with lower-quality JPEG
settings before you notice it.

FWIW, for full-width magazine spreads, I typically run the JPEGS at
around 3,000 - 4,000 pixel width, with compression that results in
around 1.5 MB file size. They don't look much different than the
results that then come out of the PDF squeeze machine, which are much
smaller, and they have plenty of sharpness and detail.

--
Ed Huntress