On Sat, 18 Feb 2006 23:31:16 +0000, Qkano <wildimages@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote/replied to: >> program in order to submit? I think not. I say up the limit to 100K >and everyone >> should be happier. >Your case for upping the "limit" to 100K would be stronger if it was >needed. Your 75k image was only 45K without bloat and perfectly fine >... I see no jepg artifacts (OK, without my glasses). >Some people on web forums gripe because they can't upload 5Mb images >straight from their camera. "Why should they have to resize them >first?" Ok then, how about if I resubmit my image at JPG quality 8 and see if you can strip enough bloat from it. Here's the thing: I'm very competent and familiar with computers and software. So if I find it a hassle to do extra work, think of all the other people who may not even understand what you're saying. Should they all download special software or take a PS course, or spend hours trying to figure this out? Yes I can 'save for web' but I find the quality suffers no matter what options I choose. Just for the simplicity and consistancy the size limit should be upped a bit. Like I said before I do not want to send a JPG with a quality of less than 5, and prefer 8. I'm thinking more here of other people. I can strip down any JPG to it's minimum size, but I'd bet most can't. While you are worrying about others downloading an extra 20K, I'm worried about others having to shrink their photos to a too small size to get under the 75K limit. And judging by the way too small sizes of the gallery submissions in the past, that likely is happening. I will make the extra effort in future to get my JPGs down, but retain a higher quality. Will everyone do the same? -- 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!
