On 2 Nov 2005 at 23:27, David Mann wrote: > I'm more concerned about file size than pixel dimensions. I may be > on broadband but I'm impatient ;) If a file is more than about 500kb > I might not bother.
I think a suggested 500k max file size is reasonable, of the images that I've presented over the last few months none were larger than 370k. Panos 1600 on the long side are generally no larger then 350k. In any case when I post a link I generally state file size so the viewer knows what they are in for. > IMO any pic that's posted is only worthwhile if your audience can > view the whole thing without scrolling, preferably within the browser > window. Otherwise we'll only be able to see a variety of cropped > versions unless we go to the effort of rescaling the file. I know > it's more work for you, but you could post links to multiple sizes. I was under the impression that most current browsers could be configured to auto-size image files so files with pixel dimensions larger than the current screen shouldn't really be an issue. I for one wouldn't be interested in providing a variety of image sizes, it's enough of a task putting up one image. I'll admit that I do enjoy being able to look around at an image in detail after considering it's overall composition particularly in the case of panos. Cheers, Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
