On Thu, 31 Dec 2015 16:46:37 -0600, Ignoramus24995
wrote:
On 2015-12-31, Ed Huntress wrote:
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.
What I do in most places, like my project pages, is that I provide
thumbnails of decent quality, like 400x400. They link to pictures of
very good quality (loosely defined).
My ebay pictures are about 500 kb.
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.
You presented facts that lead an inescapable conclusion, that it is
more important to provide details to (most) people, who can afford
good connections, rather than accommodate the remaining few who have a
slow connection.
In general, that's true. That is, if you're doing business on the Web
and not trying to make it easy for everyone to share it.
Thumbnails, generally, alleviate this dilemma.
Yes, a good policy.
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.
This is wrong.
You may not need to see the veins on leaves on the ground, but there
may be a model number,m serial number or some such, that you may want
to zoom in. How many holes, shape of holes etc, comes up for many
pictures and a good picture saves the viewer and publisher a lot of
time.
No, it's right. If you've experimented with graphic file formats, you
realize that most people GROSSLY underuse JPEG compression. Except
with files that are originally photos of black-on-white text on sheets
of paper, or converted vector files, you can stomp on those files a
lot more with JPEG than most people realize.
You don't need to reduce the pixels. You just reduce, initially, the
noise.
Here is an example. I copied one of your photos (2.10 MB), and then
compressed it by an additional 72%. Take a look at the two. I snipped
out pieces that show type in order to make it easier to see the point.
If you can tell the difference, you have better eyes than mine. The
"compressed" versions were saved at a setting of "7" (medium) in
Photoshop:
https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ntxd797hl...xrZ-7Qpqa?dl=0
--
Ed Huntress