James,
It would be fine if there was only one image per page, but seeing as this is an actual photo forum, you could probably bet that its more likely to be one or more images per reply, and it usually takes about 15 replies to fill up a page, so you're talking a fair amount to download when each image is 80Kb, it would easily be in excess of 1Mb, and that's with only one image per reply.
Why not use a slightly larger thumb?

:cheers: Will

Blue Mountains Photography

James your 2nd image is perfect. The image looks great and isn't large, and looks better than the thumb as you said. That image proves that the limit suggested (65kb or 70kb to argue the 5kb difference is petty) is just fine. Those that want to can then go to a high res version if we want, surely? People will state the way they want the forum size limit to be, so far the limit seems to satisfy most that have commented. If it's an annoyance for most then it would probably change if the admins chose to change it, have to wait and see I guess.

for those of use who aren't too savvy with optimisation, but can take a good photo - could you please give us some instructions as to how to do this. I use PSP and Photoshop.

G'day Jane, I use Photoshop and resize all my web images to be 700 pixels on the longest border, and then I use the 'save for web' option to reach a jpeg compromise between size and quality. Originals are always archived for future use etc. I do this for my own web site, but it works for here too.

Jane,
The easiest way I find to keep the size down, is when you save an image as a jpg, a little dialog box pops up asking you what level of quality you would like the jpg to be saved as. This ranges from 1-12 (if memory serves me correctly), I usually set it to around 6 or 7 for web and this will usually compress an image (depending on physical size) to somewhere between 45-70Kb. But that is my personal preference, and its what I find works for me. Play around and you'll find out what suits you're needs.

:cheers: Will

Blue Mountain Photography

Here is a great example of shithouse optimisation ... this photo:

http://img47.imageshack.us/my.php?image=halfexposedby10xzoomoct200519a.jpg

This photo published on imageshack is 128kb in size ...

Here is the same photo, slightly smaller for the sake of the thread ... it is only 24kb ... 5-6 times smaller it took me about 10 seconds to reduce the file size ... some people are just too lazy I guess.


Tell me the difference between these two?
BTW te full res version (the same as the original is 18kb)

It wouldn't be difficult to compress an image like that to a very small size ... because it contains hardly any detail!. Why not quit arguing and just accept the umpire's decision James.

Jane, another thing to consider is to change the image resolution before resizing and saving. In Photoshop when you bring up the resize dialogue window you will see a box where you can select the resolution in DPI. Change this to 72dpi, then resize the image, then "Save As" a .jpg and use the "quality" slider to get a decent compromise between image quality and file size.

Ummm what? That is my entire point! Thank you for explaining it for me again! A thumbnail version of that photo would have hardly any detail and people would have to look at the full sized version.

When the full sized version is 6-8 times larger than it should be because somebody could not bother optimising it for the web, you have to spend 6-8 times as long downloading what is a fairly boring photo ... (and the photo above is 24kb because of the automatic image sizing routines on my server, the optimised version of the original is infact 18kb (i.e. 7 times smaller).

Put the medium resolution image up, not the thumbnail, and before you upload it optimise it ...

Changing the dpi makes zero difference, this is just a number that is used for printing purposes to detirmine how large to print the image. I think what you meant to say is change the actual image size, i.e. the number of pixels. From my digi cam the pics come out at about 3000x2000 pixels, (eg. http://trapdoor.darb.net/gallery/hotham23-280904/cIMG_0817?full=1 ) You want to reduce that to something managable for people who still use 800x600 resolution screens.

What I've been doing, with varying success is resizing the images to 700 x 525, but it's trying to work out how to get the image size down to manageable levels without compromising viewing quality - I'd been using the slider for image size (down to say 7 rather than 12) in one program and saving using compression in the other, but I wondered if there was an easy and fast way of doing it that was foolproof (ie: meproof)

James its not about the pixel dimensions, but the size in kb's as you have well pointed out. And different images have different compression characteristics. But sure, if an image compresses well then post the whole thing and don't worry about the thumb. Mate, we really need to give our members stuck though no fault of their own to slow internet a choice to browse these threads and so the image size restricion needs to be adhered to.
Dave has given a good method of finding a balance between compression and quality. Perhaps the photoshop gurus want to make an addition to this in the photoshop thread? I personally use the ulead smart saver pro plugin in photoshop to find that balance.
Its true that changing an images DPI affects only the printing characteristics. It amazes me how many large print organisations such as the trading post still insist that images for their web adverts be set to a certain pixel size (fair enough), but also a certain DPI.
Cheers,
Tim

No James, I meant exactly what I said ... but I neglected to say that the "resample image" check box should be ticked. This resizes the image when the resolution is lowered and the image becomes a bit less attractive to those who like to "lift" them from web pages.

As far as the "inconvenience" of having to click thumbnails is concerned, I wonder if you are familiar with dedicated photography sites such as ADPOTD ?. That site uses thumbnails exclusively. Clicking a thumbnail will open an intermediate size image and clicking the intermediate image will open the original image. Last time I looked ADPOTD had over twenty one thousand images but I have never seen one comment or complaint from users about having to click through two images to view the full size original.

In contrast. WZ is primarily a weather site but the administrators have graciously provided us with a dedicated photography forum. Everyone else has posted here to express their thanks and appreciation but your initial post has branded it "stupid". You have labelled users as "lazy" and "in need of a lesson". It's a shame that your rather colourful vocabulary doesn't include "Thank you"!

Sorry, you are correct, I did mean to say thank you for the forum- I think it is a great idea, and I do appriciate the effort.

My point is, in case you missed it, simply this. Thumbnails DO NOT make it quicker or easier to view pages of photos ... not if you are going to look at them all anyway. All I'm doing here is expressing my opinion that I would far prefer to see threads with decent sized images, than threads with thumbnails which I have to individually click, then press my back button, then click the next one, then press my back button then click ... you get the drift ...

I'm sorry Andy, but if you are talking about changing the DPI setting in regard to resizing images, then you honestly do not understand what it means, nor what the program is actually doing.

Yes it will work, but only because the program is fixing the print dimensions- in otherwords it only works because you are telling the program to print it at the same size, but at a lower resolution. If you are going to teach people how to change the resolution of an image, it much better to teach them the fundamentals ... i.e. actually changing the number of pixels than some roundabout way that just happens to work, but when they use a different program, probably will not. Checking the "resample" box just forces this to occur. It is better for people to fundamentally understand what is happening, so therefore they should actually change the pixel dimensions of the image ... NOT the DPI, otherwise they may end up with a far larger (or smaller) image than they intended.

Yes, I DO understand how it works. When I resize an image in PhotoShop I will reduce the resolution to 72dpi with the resample box ticked. Without leaving the dialogue box I will then change the pixels to suit wherever I'm posting it ... 700 pixels on the longest side in the case of this forum. This results in a lower (print) resolution image with the desired dimensions which is then "Saved As" a jpeg. I then use the slider in the "Save As" dialogue to choose the highest quality setting that gives a file size of less than 75kb (in the case of this forum). In practice I haven't used this method on WZ very much as I use (and will continue to use) clickable thumbnails.

As far as the rest of your argument is concerned, you are assuming that everybody wants to look at every image. This is not always the case. You don't seem to understand the idea that thumbnails give users on slow connections a CHOICE in what images they view and provide a visual indication of the content of the image on which to base their choice. By embedding full size images in posts those same users have no choice but to wait for all the images to load. The file size limitation imposed on this forum minimises the imposition in loading pages containing a lot of embedded images.

I see the point your are making here, but personally I seldom look at all of someone's pics if they post 6-8, unless it's a certain event or they're a photographic gun like Dave Simpson. Sometimes I don't look at any of them, but just skim the text.

Not sure if I'm in minority there or not.

Ummm all you are doing then is resizing the image twice because that is all changing the dpi does ... dunno why you would want to do that because changing the image size more than once reduces the quality of the resized image.

Ok so your camera spits out an image 3000x2000 - and it tells the image that it is to be printed at 300DPI (i.e. 10x6 2/3" in size) ...

You import it into photoshop, and change the DPI to 72 with the resample box checked ... ALL this does is chage the image dimensions to 720x480 ... You then change the image width to 700 pixels (and therefore the width to 467 pixels) ...

Changing the DPI does NOTHING different than just changing the pixel dimensions ... All you are doing is going through an extra step that is totally unnesecary and reduces the quality of the resized image.

Yes thumbnails give users a choice of what images they want to view, but if you refer to my post previously, you'll note that I pointed out that in many many cases you cannot make an accurate detirmination if the photo is any good from a thumbnail, so therefore you can't really make a choice of whether to view it or not.

I gotta agree with Andrew - I will very rarely look at more than one or two images per post. Thumbnails are by far the best option, especially if you're using firefox - centre click on the image (on your mouse scroll) and the link will pop up in a new tab. No need to go "back and forth" to view all of the images, or to alternate between browser windows.

very true, Firefox rocks because of tabbed browsing (but you still need to click on the new Tab and then close it )

It's all done in the same dialogue window and from my understanding the image is processed only once ... when the user clicks the "OK" button.

Like Andrew, I seldom look at all the images in a thread and contrary to your statement, the thumbnails provide me with the ideal way of determining whether an image is of interest or not.

Large or numerous embedded images have been an ongoing problem, particularly in forums such as Breaking Weather. I use a tablet PC with a CDMA based 1X connection when I'm chasing. Nothing is more annoying than looking for meaningful information on a particular event only to find that an entire forum page is full of embedded images that take a long time to load or posts that consist of nothing more than "Wow!" me too stuff. I can't do much about those who post the "Wow!" stuff but at least the use of thumbnails means I don't have heaps of embedded images forced on me.

I think that the image and file size limits in force are entirely appropriate. The limits are sufficient to allow embedding a decent quality image without impacting on those with low bandwidth connections. Anyone wanting to show larger images can simply post a text link or a clickable thumbnail.

It would be interesting to know how many users ALWAYS look at ALL the images in a thread ... but I strongly suspect it isn't the majority.

I still don't understand why you don't just enter 700 in the image width section then? What is the point of setting the DPI at all?