<<< 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 Just realised I didn't comment at the time. You're asking this question when you already knew the answer. Your image in last weeks gallery was 69K: of that 13% (9K) was header crap totally irrelevant to 99% of the browsers in common use. With a tiny tweak in JpegWizard I reduced it to under 50K and it looked, to my eyes, just as good. I understand what Andy says about grainy images: I have some myself that I would never submit within a 50K limit, but before asking to increase the "limit" to 100K we should take all steps to keep the bloat down as much as possible. Broadband should not negate bloat control measures. Bob PS: your 9K contained more bloat that all the HTML some posters here send in a month ;o)
