On Tue, 14 Feb 2006 09:40:06 +0000, wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx wrote/replied to: > >I understand what you mean (I think) but I tend to try to compress images >until I can start to see degradation (with reading glasses on) then back >off a little. But the arbitrary "level 5" ... does not relate well to such >a subjective view. It really does depend on the nature of the image as I'm >sure you are aware. The sharper and crisper your pictures are to start with >the sooner you start to see the effect. Well, I make up JPGs for three purposes. One is for the printing lab, when I make it up at 12. Then there's my images for my webpages which I make at 5. The other is for Photoforum Gallery and I like to make it easy on myself and just use 5 again. I really don't care to do any more work than necessary to submit an image to the gallery. I like an image of about 800 by whatever, and I save it without colour space and I set the quality to 5, then check the size and lower the quality more if necessary. When I have to start lowering the quality below 5 to get to a 75K file, that just sucks ;-) I have at times been able to sneak the quality up to 8 or more, but that's when an image has less detail. I know it will be a long week of holding your breath, but next weekend you will get to see this masterpiece in all it's glory at a quality of 2 ;-) It looks fine... -- 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!
