For displaying pictures on a web page, full size 2000x3000 pixel
images are terrible. Scaling by browsers is often way off and renders
them into garbage, many browsers don't scale either. Then a viewer
has to meander scrolling around the image to see it ... A very poor
way of showing your work.
Whenever I supply a half-rez image so people can appreciate something
of what a print can look like, I always do it along with a web-rez
image (something that will fit in a box 700 pixels wide by 550 pixels
tall) that fits without scaling into a reasonable web page display.
Godfrey
On Apr 20, 2006, at 5:25 PM, Bob Sullivan wrote:
Don't save for the web!
Seriously, aren't these much smaller jpeg's?
I keep my pix full size and save that way as 1.3-1.5 meg jpegs.
If I resize, I shoot for a max of 800 pixels wide or 600 pixels tall,
then use a good quality setting to get a 200K+ file.
I think 200K files are not too mush to share with those on broadband.
Bottom line, think bigger...space is cheap.
