Had a few idle moments, checked the FAQ, thought I'd ask here: What size images would folks appreciate seeing in the Gallery and in the Forum? And how much compression? I do not like to scroll pictures, so I like to limit the size to about 600 pixels vertical by 900 horizontal, (my monitor is set to 864X1152, and figure tool-bar stuff). For the Forum, I usually post smaller because it is more to illustrate than impress, and I want to keep downloads speedy. In Photoshop, my jpeg compression is set to "medium." I may increase this some for the contests, especially if B&W which are pretty small anyway. Gallery images run around 100K, and I really hesitate to post anything more than 175K. Forum images I try to hold to below 80K. I have a cable modem (!!!joy). I'm betting others have different preferences...

Misha, you have stated fairly reasonable guidelines, comparable to what I have to use on other image-sites. I would bet that dial-up users would prefer images not larger than 100 K. I have been setting images to 72 dpi, and 600 pixels on the longest side, and compressing to about 8 in photoshop. This gives images which do not require scrolling on a reasonable monitor, and which are virtually always under 100 K.

I think it really depends on the image, your guidelines sound ok for most things Misha but I do find really detailed images lose quite a lot if compressed or downsizwd too much. I agree about scrolling, especially side ways, I just feel like I can't see the image if I have to scroll a lot. I'm on dial up & only find it gets really slow around 300, depends how fast the site's moving. 200 is definitely ok.

Well I pretty much resize to 800x600 and under 150k....but that's just me.

Since I've had this monitor and card setup for so long I
kinda presume that others have a similar setup, seeing as
how I always seem to be behind the hardware curve compared
to other people. I have a 21" monitor running in 1600x1200,
so those dimensions are the absolute maximum limit for my
final images. My digi-cam produces images that are 2272x1704
and after cropping I scale that image by about .5 as a
matter of course, which leaves me with an image of less than
1136x852. A little large, I guess, for smaller display
systems. I always try to go for maximum quality / minimum
jpeg compression that stays under the 500k limit.

That's for my Gallery postings. For here in the forum, I
typically reduce the dimensions by half again (568x426)
and stay under the 200k limit.

This brings up a question that I've had in the past: Would
PNG files help in preserving quality while maintaining small
file size, and will Renderosity accept this file format?
Would many people have trouble viewing this format?

A lot of different responses. I think the Macs are different from the PC, but I believe the PCs are 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1152x864 and 1280x1024. I use 1024x768, and I now post so someone at that setting wont have to scroll (allowing for the browser borders and such), although earlier I didnt. So the question is, what resolution is the most popular here? I thought 1024x768 was, but maybe Im wrong.

Well, from previous posts of this nature I think we found a few of us (myself included) are still stuck on 800 x 600 for now.... When I post an image I usually make it 600 pixels wide, and with a Photoshop compression of 9 that seems to work out about right for up/downloading speeds on my cable modem also. I hate big images, you really can't appreciate them at all when you have to scroll to see them, but no doubt I'll fall into line when I can afford a bigger monitor! (",)

I'm in the same boat at Joardy. Misha as I recall you current image size is alright. I think I often go above the 100K limit. BUT I too am using dial up connection. HOWEVER my modem is a ole 33.6. Since I'm comfortable with the download time and I thought my modem was the slowest around here. I don't feel bad about 100K size. I don't mind scroling much although ( Sorry Alpha ) some stuff certain people post ( cough, cough, aplha ) is a tad big and always requires scroling. It's not a problem however, but I have to save and look at the picture in some art program to see it all at onece which I believe is the way it should be seen. Let's face it scrolling images from the top down and then from the left to the right biases our responce to a image. OR am I alone in my feelings of this. Bsteph

I'm sort of in Misha's ball park, I rarely post anything over 180k in the galleries, but occasionally I just have to, (well I don't, but like Bev I dislike too much loss) I hhave a 17" Monitor (read 15" screen real estate) and my settings are at 1024 x 768, so I apoligise to anybody else who has smaller screens & seettings like Jordy, if they have to scroll. Forum postings I try to keep around the 100k or lower mark, but as usual there are exceptions...I have a relatively slow dial-up, so the load times for images are probably as slow as anyone can get, but I don't mind ususally, because most images are usually worth waiting for. The only thing I will say is that iit cuts down onthe available time I have for browsing the galleries, visiting the forum etc!

I'm on 800x600 (Mac is the same as PC I think) & I seem to remember when this discussion came up a couple of times before most people are on the same. I think I'll try a different set up just to see what it's like...

I'm on 800x600, mostly cos anytime I try anything bigger, I get headaches trying to read the nav bars and the text, maybe I'm doing something wrong....

Though my screen is 800x600, I'm really not bothered about filesize - even though I'm on a dialup I only pay a fixed amount each month, so time doesn't bother me, and I just view bigger images in ACDSee. Others I think still pay per minute, though - I'm pretty sure Gunsan has mentioned this before. (",)