Hello Roy, If you define 1400X1050 px, or any other px nombers, you don't need to specify the resolution (72ppi) The X *Y px is enough. Pini -----Original Message----- From: owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx [mailto:owner-photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] On Behalf Of karl shah-jenner Sent: Monday, December 24, 2012 6:09 AM To: List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students Subject: Re: PF members photographs on 15/12/2012 > 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 > > > > >
