|
 |
Simon Lemieux wrote:
> > IMO thumbnails under 10k, I keep the ones on my site around 3-4k but they're small
in
> > area compared to some and there's a lot of them. Backgrounds small too, "title"
> > graphics under 50k and images themselves under 200. Of course you always have to
> > consider jpeg limitations, so exceptions can be made.
> >
> > It looks like your site is pretty good about that. I see you have two res. for
each
> > one, that's always nice.
>
> This makes me think that I could probably compress most the small images,
> thumbnails, etc to 90-95% and still get a very nice image but with half the disk
> size... The difference won't even be noticable!...
You seem to tend towards RGB-type color schemes, which isn't a bad thing but isn't
jpeg
friendly. So if your file sizes are somewhat larger than normal so be it... (case in
point
most of the full-size pics on my site are around 100-150k, but the lego phalanx is
nearly
300. that's 800x600 too, and your high-res versions are bigger than that)
--
David Fontaine <dav### [at] faricy net> ICQ 55354965
My raytracing gallery: http://davidf.faricy.net/
Post a reply to this message
|
|
