----- Original Message ----- From: "Paul Stenquist" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, February 03, 2002 3:45 PM Subject: Re: A PUG Compromise (Was Re: Why do my photos appear in PUGfull of artifacts?)
> Hi Bill, > Sounds good to me. I'm fine with the rules as long as we have the 600 by > 600 max. However, if you occasionally allowed something up to about 80K > or maybe 85K, it might be good to make the real limit 90, and hold to > that as an absolute limit. Just a thought. > In any case, I'm thankful for the hard work of all the Pugmeisters. > Paul Don't thank me, I was just pasing on iformation from when I was doing the job, and letting you know what went on in the decision making process. Almost all the images submitted to the gallery could be compressed down to less than 50k with minimal quality loss. A few need to be larger filesizes, though they could be redimensioned to say 500 pixels and then could come in under the 75k restriction. The 75k filesize was not an arbitrary number we pulled out of a hat. We had a very real need to limit server usage. Making the occassional exception to the rule when deemed necessary is a better approach, IMHO. This keeps the files that don't need to be larger at a reasonable filesize, while allowing some liberty for oversized images from time to time. William Robb - This message is from the Pentax-Discuss Mail List. To unsubscribe, go to http://www.pdml.net and follow the directions. Don't forget to visit the Pentax Users' Gallery at http://pug.komkon.org .
