Xplo Eristotle wrote:
> Jim Charter wrote:
> 
>> Xplo Eristotle wrote:
>>
>>> Since I have enough bandwidth to download them in a reasonable space 
>>> of time, I'd like others to post minimally-compressed or lossless 
>>> images here.
>>>
>>> Therefore, I will post such images in the future.
>>>
>>> Please be considerate towards me and do not overcompress your images.
>>>
>>> (playing devil's advocate, here, though I do prefer minimally 
>>> compressed or lossless images) 
>>
>>
>> Certainly to post poorly compressed, artifact plagued images is as 
>> much a waste of resources as anything else.  There are several ways to 
>> comprimise without suffering artifacts.
> 
> 
> Not really. Any lossy compression will result in artifacts. What you 
> mean to say is that the artifacts will be within an acceptable range.. 
> but what that range IS, is completely subjective.
> 
No what I meant was things like: posting at reduced resolutions or 
posting detail shots, posting a link to the image somewhere else, or 
posting large files when necessary but noting the file size in the 
subject and recognizing that such postings could come at greater 
intervals than those of someone posting small files.

I understand and agree with your main point that consideration cuts both 
ways.  I thought I had reinforced my agreement in fact when I stated 
that a poorly compressed image amounts to an *equal* squandering of 
resources as does, say, posting an image in an unnecessarily bulky 
format or at a resolution unnecessary for the amount of detail in the image.

Post a reply to this message