James B. Davis wrote:
I still say the size should be increased, 75K just isn't enough. If you have a
JPG 800 x 535 with lots of detail you can't fit it in unless you go down to a
compression of 3 which is too much.
And that's without any colour space info I might add.
I saved a complicated image from its original 6 mp size, setting it to
800 by 532 at 72 dpi (CS2 lingo) and then using Imageready to shrink for
web use, setting quality around 40 - above medium quality.
resulting file was 57 kB. Obviously there are some jpg artefacts but it
looked pretty good to me. However I don't see the point in using
photoshop to prepare for the web. If you've got Imageready it gives
smaller files with better quality.
As far as the forum exhibition is concerned, yes you're right. Photos
should be sized to fit on the "average" screen though, but with greater
resolution to off set the appearance of artefacts. Including a watermark
would prevent any copying issues, though I find most images copied from
the web are useless for printing unless they are of sufficent size, in
which case the author doesn't usually mind them being used!
Howard
