Everyone - in the interest of faster downloads and your own image protection - please make your jpegs smaller. I constantly run into 500K or 200K screen resolution images on this site. I don't have a highs peed connection and it takes a long time to see your images. An image should be around 100k max for the 800x600 sizes I am seeing. Anything more and you are also making yourself a willing target to people who steal images off the internet. There is no reason to do a jpeg high image when posting to a website. You're just wasting bandwidth and you are putting too much quality out there that really goes wasted. Of course this is open to discussion and it is just my opinion, but in most cases a medium jpeg or med-high jpeg are all you need for us to be able to see the detail in your images. I have seen hundreds of threads on image stealing, etc on the various forums here at renderosity. You can do us all a favor and at the same time THWART a potential image bandit in the process. I know professionals who put out CDs with images at the JPEG high setting, and although JPEG is a lossy format - at the high setting a great deal of the image info is still intact. There is no reason to put this quality on line unless you intend to sell it or you don't mind what happens to your image. All I can say is high quality is asking for trouble. Sorry for the rant (if it came off that way) but by lowering your jpeg settings we can all benefit and especially keep the snakes from benefiting from our hard work. thanks, Scott ps - I am very knowledgeable about image compression, so if you need help just ask!

I completely agree with you Scott.

First of all, it is not necessary to put images here or in the gallery which have a 1024 or highter screen resolution. You can do this on your private homepage if you wish.
Often people put such big images where you have to scroll right and left and up and down to see a part of the (hmm! mostly not worth)picture. Personally, I just run away when this happens.

And in fact, we have to think to modem users. Before I got DSL shortly, I was always complaining for the same reason and even did not see all the images I would have loved to see. Now, with DSL, I can do it, but mostly I have not the time to wait for an image to load and go to the next one, mostly much better:-). And if it takes more then 10 or 20 seconds, I give up.

800x600 images with a lower weight then 150 KB (100-140) are OK.

Also, dear friends, if you want your images to be seen by everybody take care about what you upload. Otherwise don't wonder if you don't get comments. The size of the thumbnail is also very important. It should never be bigger then 10KB.

:-)Guitta

Not at all Guitta, Max size is 15kb for the thumbnails. ;=) Yves

I know Yves:-) But better is to keep it smaller. It is not necessary to use the maximum. That's what I wanted to say:-) Guitta

I agree with you Scott and Guitta...

Some images uploaded in Renderosity's galleries have a size of more than 500 KB ! I even saw a thumbnail in the free stuff area of 175 KB...

In my opinion, images in the galleries should not be bigger than 150 KB. For a 800x600 pixels JPG that's already enough. If you really want to upload a "ultra-high" quality image, then it might be better to use a smaller resolution (640x480 pixels for example).

:) Eric

Can you notice a difference ?

The only difference is that the first image has a size of 84 KB (100% JPG quality) and the second of 30KB (88 % JPEG quality).

So, please, save us some downloading time !!!

:) Eric

I agree and I always save my jpegs at between 80 and 90% compression and never post anything on the net wider than 800. On my own website, I always just thumbnails linked to larger images, sure saves on bandwidth. Most people would rather browse through the gallery of thumbnails (around 300 wide) and only click on images that they want to see detail on. I often skip out of posts if the image is too wide for my screen, I know that the originator probably didn't compress the image and even with cable they often take too long to load.

Cool - glad to see everyone is in agreement here. Another thing we are all hinting at here is if it takes too long to download people will not see your images. When it takes too long people bail out just like when webpages take too long on a website. That illustration above is a perfect example Eric - thanks! Screen res images (72 dpi) are lower detail naturally, and as these images demonstrate you cannot tell the difference in higher quality jpegs at these resolutions. All that bandwitdh is wasted and your potential viewers may never see your image, because it takes too long to download. I also agree with Guitta - 800 x 600 is the perfect size - scrolling is a pain and it is always good to target your image size to fit in the average browser window. Think about how you look at an image when you go to a real art gallery - you see the image as a whole, you don't zoom in and look at parts of it - that is what scrolling forces your viewer to do. Great discussion everyone. I hope the 'fat' uploaders are listening ; ) Scott

I agree completely with everything said so far. I'm curious how everyone feels about forum posts, though. I try to keep them under 50kb, but since I use smaller dimensions (640x480 or less) for forum posts over gallery posts, could I effectively compress them even more? Rich

Scott - IMHO you're not ranting, you're being too generous. The math on the antiquated 56Kbps modems many people (including myself) still use is very simple : o 56Kbps roughly equals a d/l speed of 7Kb a sec o Allow for slow-line jumps, errors etc. and you have 5Kb a sec o According to the www-wizards (www.useit.com), even a dedicated fan's patience is 10 secs maximum o ...meaning that anything above 50Kb is a prime candidate for the "Back" button The viewable-without-scrolling area in a browser is roughly 800x600 on a 1024x768 screen, which is still the most common setting. And at that res, few pictures will suffer from being squeezed to below 50Kb. They WILL look lousy when printed - but that will probably only bother the pirates. The honest users will contact the artist for a copy of the hi-rez original. So I agree with all above - keep repeating this message until the bandwith-guzzlers hear it. We can always tell'em it's in their own best interests - it would even be true ;o)

The pics you sent also look different, Audity.. size 84 kb pic has stronger colours. 30 kb picture is more pale. I use 56k modem, but adjusting jpeg quality DOES show.

Better to be viewed w/ pale colors than never to be viewed at all ;o)

Never realized . having adsl for ages. and a big screen . I never have to scroll. so this latest Image I shrink in size and jpged it down. regards maria

Attached Link: http://www.renderosity.com/viewed.ez?galleryid=237645&Start=37&Sectionid=1&WhatsNew=Yes

Lol. Even My 21 inch screen has to scroll on an image like that. not even change the resolution for that. most of the time i kept it 1024 wide, but I shrinked?(Shrank) whatever, the last pic. to lower size. Will try to remember it for the future ;) regards maria

Myske, it is not the size of the screen what counts, but only the screen resolution:-). You don't need to shrink your screen resolution, just render your images 800x600, whatever your screen resolution is. :-)Guitta

Duh... I allways render to screen, and since now I crop the size in Paint shop pro. Never get the touch of the size render. regards maria

Thanks for the hint, Scott--as I'm sitting directly on a 100MBit connection at work, I sometimes lose touch with reality (despite the 56K modem I use at home ;) ). I promptly resized my latest image to reduce file size. ta, -Sascha.rb