Re: Image sizes
- From: "Phil Layton" <t3pdl@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 11 Apr 2009 18:10:22 +0100
<jack.harrison@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:4465c079-3314-4cfc-b455-4ebbf3f326bb@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Occasionally people link to intersting photographs on their websites.
However, a recent check shows that some were over 3,000 kB and are
published at the full size of perhaps as much as 10 megapixels. (eg
3,600 pixels x 2,700 pixels)
Those sizes may be fine for the lucky few with fast broadband. Most
of us don?t have that luxury and such images take forever to download.
There are (to the best of my knowledge) no hard and fast rules about
image sizes on websites. But as a rule of thumb, I generally resize
to no more than 1000 x 750 pixels and compress to be fewer than 100
kB.
Here?s an example sent in by a glider pilot and on my weatherjack
site:
http://s214580749.websitehome.co.uk/photos/photo-229-MikeGreenwood.jpg
It?s a mere 74 kB but perfectly adequate for web publishing but
perhaps not for printing. (It shows mountain wave cloud over Spain)
Jack,
I don't have any on my site at the moment, but when I do I downgrade the
image to 800x600 or so with a file size ofe between 100-200kb.
Phil
.
- References:
- Image sizes
- From: Jack (jack.harrison@xxxxxxxxx)
- Image sizes
- Prev by Date: Re: A glimmer of hope for summer.
- Next by Date: Wavy Front
- Previous by thread: Re: Image sizes
- Next by thread: Re: Image sizes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|