ADavidhazy <andpph@ritvax.isc.rit.edu> wrote/replied to: >>>Oh, once again I'd like to ask if gallery images could be increased in >>>size a bit. After all, monitors are getting bigger and webspace and >>>bandwidth growing. Would it be too much to send 100K files instead of >>>50K ones? Shots like this would really be improved. Heck, all shots >>>would be improved. Just asking... > >Jim, you may have noticed that the "rules" are somewhat relaxed and file >sizes slightly in excess of 70Kb have been included in the PF exhibits. >Image sizes are still preferable at no larger than 500 or so pixels in >the longest dimension. Subjects with a great deal of detail, like grain >that Jeff Spirer specializes in (!), tend to run high and those with >smooth areas can be brought in at much smaller file sizes. Bob Talbot >in particular is a whiz at exploiting the last bit (or byte?) out of >every image file Well, that's nice I can save a higher quality JPG now but with the longest side being 500 pixels, it's just too small to really show up an image well. Especially if the subject is small in the image. I guess a link to a webpage with a larger image is something I'm going to do in the future. Thanks Andy, at least now I don't have to worry about shrinking images by degrading them. Jim Davis - checkout the Motorcycle Headlight Relay Kit at: http://jimdavis.oberro.com/html/bike_acc_.html
