In PS7 I save as a jpg, adjust image size less than 2 inches, set to 0 quality and I still end up with a file up to 86K. When I make it so small that it registers as 13K...when I look at the file it is really 16.9... so I make it smaller still Now the image looks like blemish on a wart instead of a beautiful woman. OK I tried the crop option and even tried PS3. Looks even worse... like bacteria on a blemish. I really didn't have these problems before this new gallery format

Have you tried the "Save for Web" option in PS7? I find it helpful because it will allow you resize the image, select compression method and amount of compression, and shows the image size as well as a visual of the final image. I usually select a 150px x 150px area of the image for a thumbnail. Reducing an entire complex, detailed image for a thumbnail doesn't work very well for me.

Don, what dpi have you got your image?...72 dpi is all you need for the web, and it really does get your file sizes down. Any extra detail that you might get for print at a higher dpi (for example 300) is lost on a computer monitor and bloats your file sizes out so that things take a long time to load for anyone on a modem (which is something I have noted whenever I've tried to view your images) Try changing the dpi. :-)>

I find as long as the thumb is under 200x200, it is excepted regardless of whether or not it is over the 15k.

"Save for Web" is the way to do it, as H3AdBaBy said. A jpg is compressed even more once it is functioning in its compressed format. When Photoshop shows something as being 200K as a jpg, it will be considerably smaller once its actually saved in its jpg format. "Save for Web" will show you that optimized file size correctly.

Thanks I never tried the save for web function yet. grim I bet if you tried to post a thumbnail greater than 15K it will be rejected since the gallery upgrade was directed to enforce what was previously a suggestion of 15 K.

Well I never check the K size. I just make sure it's within 200x200. Just upload and see what happens.

Incidentally - I just checked the size of some of my thumbs and many are around 24k. Uploaded without problems.

Wow, 24 K is big. At least for me it is. My thumbs average about 7K.

That's tiny! tee hee...

Sometimes great things come in small packages, ya know what I mean?

I'm sensing some inuendo.....

Is that what that smell is? Ha! Vagueness and deception are the keys to success!

Grimtwist: I got cut off and had 2 redo some thumbs because the server said it has 2 b under 15k, maybe this is new deal? Also I have not much of an idea in technical terms, but I do agree w/ the 72 dpi deal mentioned by PunkClown. I just reinstalled Photoshop and windows because I killed it, and had to lower that down 2 72, I have PS5. I assume it is the same w/7. (default file is like 300dpi) I haven't had too many problems since checking this.

Hmmm....are you sure it wasn't because it was larger than 200x200 pixels? My last upload was about a month ago (I think) and iI didn't have a problem.

The programing has been changed since then Grim, happened a week or so ago. Even though the upload page has always stipulated a 15kb thumbnail limit it used to let > 15kb through. This isn't the case anymore.
:-)>

When they began the new galleries, with the sections and genres, they began enforcing the size rule with the thumbnails and images. No thumbs over 15 k now. :)

Oh bugger. That sucks.

thank you for reiterating that 15 k Crasher, I was curious about that. :-)

btw ~ Did anyone mention that thumbs over 15 kb aren't uploadable anymore? :-D>

Yeah. It sucks. I can't get a decent looking thumb now. Could of at least made it 20k

C'mon Grim, don't be glum...the thumbnail is just a teaser for the main event, your images speak for themselves. Why don't you try cropping an interesting part of your main image and shrink that with less compression...use a portion of your image as a thumb, without compromising your perceived quality of thumbness. Why are people so obsessed with big thumbs? We going hitch-hiking? What was that girls name? Jelly-bean, Jelly-roll? ...damn can't remember now...
;-)>

Thumbness is paramount. It is what draws the viewer in. You wouldn't stick a crappy cover on a book.....I'm sure I can figure out something.

Gee, I always thought you shouldn't judge a book by its cover?...I guess beauty is only skin-deep after all too! Which is bad news for me!
;-)>
I'm sure you will work something out Grim...you're a pretty resourceful character!
:-)>

You use Photoshop don't you Grim?...an example of properties of one of your thumbs from the gallery before and after save for the web...of course this image was saved again (at Quality: 8 high)...compressing it one more time...but on my screen (prior to resaving...and now) I was hard pressed to see too much difference in the before and after thumbs Grim... but check out the difference in file size. I don't know the compressed file looks ok to me... :-)>

You don't judge the contents of a book by it's cover, no, but the cover is what makes a book stick out on a shelf of a 100 other books all vying for the reader's attention and cry: "read me - I'm interesting!" ...anyway... I couldn't get all mine to look that good. Some pics compress better than others. I'll have to try again.

http://www.eyeball-design.com/page09.htm: "Photoshop can also optimize images and convert them to GIFs. You can use the Indexed mode or export to GIF89Export to create to GIFs. The trick here is to be able to use the lowest number of colors or the lowest bit mode."