Some new pics

[Iconz]

i looked at them for her for x-mas... maybe next year.

[melev]

Very nice pictures. With a camera like that, could we expect anything less?

I'd like to make a suggestion, if you happen to be a photoshop user. When you save the images, save them with "Save For Web", and then select 52 (Quality). It will take those .5 meg images and save them around 125k each. That equals 4 images people can view for the same bandwidth of one image currently. I'm on DSL, and it was a tad sluggish downloading the 13 image (6.5 megs perhaps). If you'd like a screen shot of what I'm referring to, I have it on this page: http://www.melevsreef.com/pics/demo/

I really liked the ricordia shot, btw. The very one you weren't too pleased with.

[perpetual98]

Thanks Marc. I'm aware of the Save For Web feature. I use that a lot when I don't care about detail. For some reason I never think of it when I'm trying to "wow" people with cool macros. My brain can't wrap around the fact that lowering the quality doesn't really make the image that much worse. Stupid brain...

I need to go clean up a whole bunch of photos on my server.

About halfway through my huge blog thread on my site i realized that people didn't need hi-res pictures of my putting electrical outlets together. lol

[perpetual98]

Ok, I THINK that I went into my server and lowered most of the files resolution. Are they downloading quicker now?

Eric

[melev]

Yes, that is much better. I want the wow factor as well, but for web use we simply don't need print quality files. If you don't like 52, go for 60. That is still quite nice, but keeps files under 175k in most cases (640 x 480).