Jan van Bodegraven made a good point in the Red Rock Canyon thread. It's been the rule here to limit posted image files to 50kb or less. I often see some great photos ruined by bad compression. So, I'd like to ask everyone's opinion on the subject. Should we:

(a). Keep the limit at 50kb? (b). Raise the limit to 75kb? (c). Raise the limit to 100kb? (d). _______________. (your suggestion here)

I vote for (b), 75kb; many of my scans seem to end up around that size, and it doesn't overly tax 56k modems. How about it, folks?

-- Christian Deichert (torgophile@aol.com), October 09, 2000

Answers

My vote would be d) 100k. It allows for nice large images with few/no artifacts and still would not tax a 56k connection - at least not in comparison to the pleasure of seeing a nice image :-)

-- Anders Bystrup (bystrup@selskabet.org), October 10, 2000.

I think 300k cause my cable modem will download it in 1 sec. Ok I think the 75 should be fine but would prefer 100. The bigger the better

-- Keith Anderson (redtags@optushome.com.au), October 10, 2000.

Ditto. go big or go home!

-- Aaron Helleman (helleman@home.com), October 10, 2000.

Why not just adopt the practice of providing links to our higher- resolution images?

-- Hal Mothershed (halmot@bellsouth.net), October 10, 2000.

Hal's suggestion is a good one. Use the displayed image as a thumbnail of sorts then goto the larger image for careful review. Keeps the scan of what's new on the forum fast.

-- Micheal F. Kelly (radiant@gci.net), October 10, 2000.

Because we are here for critique and not just casual viewing and intend to spend more than the average 10 seconds per pic, I would vote for 100K (even though it would tax my 56K modem).

-- Warren Kato (wkato@aol.com), October 11, 2000.

I would prefer that the inline image limit remain somewhere near 50Kb but encourage links to larger versions. This keeps the pages loading quickly, and allows greater detail to be offered. It also allows someone to later delete their larger image and leave their smaller 50K image around for future readers of the critiques.

-- John Thurston (john_thurston@my-deja.com), October 13, 2000.