Thread: Photobucket
View Single Post
Old 07-11-2017, 12:23 PM
Jerry's Avatar
Jerry Jerry is offline
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: Elma, IA.
Posts: 2,998
Photo size is not relevant except if you are going to print the image. PC monitors cannot display all the info that is contained in a good photo. If you reduce your photo size down to around 300K it will still display just fine, take up a lot less storage space, and load much faster.

First photo (Crystal Mill, Colorado) is a 1.2mb file:

(Photo name is 1556L.jpg.)

Same photo at even more reduced size (Original is 6.6mb) of 367K:

(Photo name is 1556s.jpg.)

There is no difference in the display quality when you click on the photos to bring them up to a larger size. In fact, photo sizes of 100 - 200K are perfectly fine for web viewing.

Now if you were to print these photos, particularly at larger sizes, you would see a difference in quality. I suspect not a lot of photos posted are printed.

There is no real reason to post a 2mb photo file in these threads as you cannot see the difference between it and a 330K version of the same photo. If someone does want a higher resolution image to print, send the photo owner a private mail (PM) and have him or her send you a higher quality image more suitable for printing.

Smaller images load faster, use less bandwidth to upload and download, and save on storage space. Image quality does not suffer when viewed on PC screens. No reason not to use smaller-size images in this or any web venue. Yes, you do have to use a program (some free, some low-cost) to save an image at a lower resolution before you upload it, but these programs allow basic photo editing such as cropping and color correction and are worth having on your system. (I use Photoshop Elements, cost is around $80.00.)
Jerry Fields
'82 XJ 'Sojourn'
'06 Concours
My Galleries Page.
My Blog Page.
"... life is just a honky-tonk show." Cherry Poppin' Daddy Strut
Reply With Quote