Re[2]: New Photos!

["Peter Badcock"<pbadcock@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>]

Luvdove6@xxxxxxx wrote:
> 
> Hey...  I added much better b&w photos... before you only saw about 6 color 
> IR photos that came out pretty crappy...  these were my experiences with b&w 
> (done RIGHT this time with the right filter)   Go see em!   Critiques are
> welcome...  I'd rather get critique of my photography than my web-design 
> since its pretty simple  ;-)
> Thanks guys.. you've helped me a lot! 
> 
> http://members.wbs.net/homepages/f/r/e/freakkk/enter.htm

That said, I would change the size of the thumbnails, making them smaller.  The 
page is really taking a long time to download (it is still downloading as I type
this).  I use a 28.8 modem (it's now finished loading - took about six minutes),
which is actually rather typical.  The last thing you want is for someone to 
give up because of a long download time.  It appears that you have much to 
offer, as the thumbnails look very good.

Cheers -

george

-- 

______________________________ Reply Separator _________________________________
Subject: Re: New Photos! 
Author:  <infrared@xxxxx> at Internet
Date:    23/6/99 22:46

Hi Holly,

I think the website design is nice and simple.  I have the added benefit of 
being able to view your pages via a very fast link so the large(64kB!) 
thumbnails didn't take too long (in fact some of your 'larger images were 
smaller in file size than the thumbnails! eg. 'irtreesledges.jpg' was only 41kb 
on the enlarged one!), 
In general I will second George's comment.  That is keep the thumbnails small 
(say 5-10kb, depending on how many thumbnails you want to display at once.  from
my experience, any page which has more than about a total of 60 to 80kb of 
pictures on it will not be stared at for long by a slowish modem user (ie 
28.8kbps) and then all you effort has gone to waste on them :( Definitely make 
the bigger dimensioned image a larger file size (say up to 80-100kb MAX, after 
all the person did want to view the image!).

  When you compress a JPEG image you usually get an option as to the compression
ratio (eg. in Paintshop Pro or Adobe Photoshop etc).  Obviously the higher the 
compression, the poorer the image quality but the smaller the file size, and the
more likely someone is going to hangabout your page waiting for the images to 
download, So you have to balance the tradeoffs.  but you may be incredibly 
suprised by how little detail is lost when compressing a jpeg (aka jpg) file 
with a high compression ratio.  Try it and see for yourself!

all the best
regards
Peter

*
****
*******
******************************************************
*  To remove yourself from this list, send:          *
*         UNSUBSCRIBE INFRARED                       *
*       to                                           *
*         MAJORDOMO@xxxxx                            *
*----------------------------------------------------*
*   For the IR-FAQ, IR-Gallery and heaps of links:   *
*  http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm  *
******************************************************