1400 x 1050 px is a good size. Use 72ppi and then squash them with jpeg
compression. I have downloaded a few pic I posted to Craig's list and
they
come out like 37 kb and still look decent. I can't figure out how they do
it.
Roy
They and many other sites simply use a compression level around 80%
A bitmap and a jpeg at 100% are the same size in Mb give or take a bit here
or there - which is no surprise since a jpeg is just a compressed bitmap,
akin to a zip file but with more smarts allowing you to decide which colours
are 'near enough' to run them together.
A bitmap or a jpeg at 1000 ppi and the same bitmap or jpeg at 1 ppi (or
even no pixels per inch) will be the same size.. and they will also display
at the same size in nearly every browser since ppi (dpi) means nothing to a
browser, it's a function of printing - browsers just display the pixels
present.. if it's 1000 x 10 that's what you get to see and your monitor
resolution decides how big it looks to you viewing it.
Specifying a restricted limit on size is still a good thing as : A. not all
the world has fast interwebs; B. it encoiurages people to think about how
size actually works; C. it stops people from viewing an image in Photoshop
that's 3x4" on their screen and sending it in as-is thinking 'there, that
should look nice!' (while the guy on the receiving end has hysterics when
the 34,000 x 45,333 at 10,000 dpi image comes down the pipe and the 4 Tb
image eats their drives)
In a message dated 12/23/2012 5:34:25 P.M. Eastern Standard Time,
pinimage@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:
From: Ramona
I do not understand those regulations.
It was written in the days of lazy internet (24kb modems)
Now we are at 10-100 Mb/s ADSLs and 300kb image do not take much more
time
than 100Kb to download.
Storage volume is also not a justified reason.
What you should ask is to constrain the pixel dimensions so it fits a
typical web page. Let say something around 1500X1000 px.
This demand will cause not more than 300kb images anyway.
Pini
