On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 10:26:26 +0000, howard <home@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: >>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. I just saved a JPG that I had to go down to JPG quality 2 to get unde 75K with no colour info. It was a landscape ocean coastline scene with lots of detail in the waves, etc. It was the same size, 800 by 532. I don't like going to such low quality settings but had to. I don't see why the limit isn't at least 100K. -- Jim Davis, Owner, Eastern Beaver Company: http://easternbeaver.com/ Motorcycle Relay Kits, Powerlet, Posi-Lock, Parts, Info, Photos K100RSes on both sides of the planet!
