Printable View
Just wondered how much you folks are compressing your images these days for free sites and the likes?
Right now, im using filesizes of around 15k for the full sized image but im wondering if this can be reduced even further?
Your thoughts?
Regards,
Lee
15k is pretty small as it is, you can try to make it smaller but I think it will effect the quality unless you want to make the dimensions of the images even smaller.
I have seen some people use small pop-up windows for the pics, not sure even with that you could get much smaller than 15k
about 40k in free sites
in paysites about 100k 800x600pixels
Thats crazy.Quote:
Originally Posted by webnet
That means that for every 10 visitors to your free sites you are burning almost 2 gigs in bandwidth :eek:
Thats got to be wrong.
Regards,
Lee
Well ya that is big but, I would not say that most people would look at all the pics maybe just 1-3 of them pre page. I am sure too that you would know all of this
Well the reason i say thats crazy is because of this..
http://www.leewindsor.com/compression/0020a.jpg
Which is the original at around 35k or thereabouts and then after compression...
http://www.leewindsor.com/compression/0020b.jpg
Theres hardly any difference between the two pics yet one of them saves me around 20k each time it loads.
Regards,
Lee
I think if you put the image in a pop-up window and made it just a bit smaller it would really have the exact same quality as the uncompressed one. But for “free site” that would be allot of extra work. I would go with what you have now, hell its just free site. All of this is just another reason I use free hosts for free sitesQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Oh and here's the Photoshop compressed image..
http://www.leewindsor.com/compression/0020c.jpg
Not to impressed with Photoshop when it comes to compression it has to be said!
Regards,
Lee
a well made free site makes you sales but not if you break the rules of the link lists - a popup would certainly keep you from getting linked.
lee and i were just doing an experiment and we discovered something. photoshop compressed graphics were bigger in k and worse to look at the graphics made in the program lee uses. i lovee the graphics he made with these other program. MUCH better!
Quote:
Originally Posted by New Guy
Ya I am not to happy with PhotoShop in that respect too, you could really make the image shorter I think it would fix allot of the distortion. In my opinion for free sites they really do need to much more than with fit on the screen with out scrolling. BTW you know a really good text front creator that would work with PhotoShop that’s the other thing I really don’t like about that.
Dont forget MUCH cheaper too LOLQuote:
Originally Posted by basschick
The $35 for the program will be recouped a thousand times over in the course of a year using that ReaCompressor program, not a bad investment for anyone imho $0.02
Regards,
Lee
Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Well never spent the time to create pop-up windows for free sites, and if you have hosted domains on the free hosts normally link lists do not give you a problem. Some pic posts will but sites like that are easy to do and only last a few days really.
What’s the name of it? And you know a good front creator compatible with PhotoShopQuote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Off the topic but I am glad to announce I will be adding http://cruiserboys.com/ to my members site in the next week :cool:
It is wrong. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
40k x 10 visitors x 20 pics = 8,000k or 7.81 megs or .0076 gigs
100k x 10 visitors x 20 pics = 20,000k or 19.53 megs or .019 gigs
also, I have all with thumbs, the member only view 6 o 7 pics of every photo set ;-)
are you using Photoshop "Save For Web"?
paysites should at least have photos 800x600, why not larger
that are sharp.
But also big enough thumbs so the punters won't have to click on every thumb
I resize. compress etc... with "Thumbnailer"
work very fast.
I use photoshop only for design sites.