Ross' texture challenge

[Vectormonkey (formerly, Borlip)]

Cool idea. I had fun with this.

~Dave!~

[Vectormonkey (formerly, Borlip)]

Cool idea. I had fun with this.

~Dave!~

[Mickie]

I agree, alot of fun, thanks for putting it together Ross.

Here's my "creation".

Mickie

[Egg Bramhill]

.....this is fun
Egg

[Briar]

great fun but the threads get so slow. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif[/img]

[Judi A]

Briar, I think you just won the contest! [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_smile.gif[/img]

[Egg Bramhill]

An excellent image. One thing that I've noticed regarding some of the recent images to the forum is that people are not really giving enough thought to image size, which of course will slow down topic loading. I don't mean this as a critism but your own posting is 251 Kbs and a jpg. I wonder what compression value you used? I've reposted your image with a 50% jpg compression, which is only 29 Kbs, 8 times smaller in file size than your original without much loss of image quality. In threads like this one which are going to be very image intensive it becomes even more important to give thought to file size, as already mentioned, the images aren't cached and therefore have to be reloaded anew each time someone visits the thread.
Egg

[Briar]

EGG I have noticed the size of images
and usually try to keep the to 550-600 pix
wide must have forgotten, my apologies.

Brian. [img]/infopop/emoticons/icon_wink.gif[/img]

[pduggan]

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="-1">quote:</font><HR>One thing that I've noticed regarding some of the recent images to the forum is that people are not really giving enough thought to image size...<HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Thank you, Egg! Folk should take pride in their work and we can all understand the desire to post images at as high a quality as possible, but the nature of the web and (especially) the Infopop forced reloads can make this a very frustrating business. Although it may seem like a compromise to post (for example) a 50K image instead of a 200K one, it's surely less of a compromise than having it skipped altogether by frustrated users (like me, sorry!) when we see who's posting and whether they're posting at their typical file sizes (not going to name names, but I could come up with a few!). For the record, 70% quality is pretty well my stock setting for JPEGs although I'll go higher or lower for specific purposes. But I'm pretty sure that we have regular posters at 100% (which I've never used!), and suggest to them that even 95 or 90% makes a huge difference to file-size and negligible difference to quality.



Peter</p>



Peat Stack or Pete's Tack?</p>