Re: Sibrob photos, Files and the like (long)

---

I wonder if you could explain the rationale behind that thought. It must
take the same amount of time to download the pic from the web site as it
does to receive it automatically through the email attachment. Furthermore,
if you wish to view the photo again, some other day, you have to go through
the download another time; with the attachment it is sent to your machine
only once. And you don't have to go clicking your way through the web site,
or load multiple windows if you wish to avoid repeating a time-consuming
download. Plus, the link to the photo is right there in the letter
discussing it.
What am I missing here? Just where is the benefit? We don't have enough
photos to make much of a dent in our hard drives, so in that respect there
is not much benefit.
I hope for some useful comments as this is the main focus of this post.

 

To explane this matter I have done two pics of PLEASURE OF MAY. Both are aproximately the same size 343 x 327, but one showing clump other detail-flower. The first is 24.7KB and latter 14.1KB. From pics you can see that if in photo are shown more details, more objects, more colors, shades etc., against the photo with less, the files also will be larger or smaler. Remember, please, that when you take photo of garden wiew or flowering bed or even clump, the file of pic always  will be larger than file of separate flower. Also if the background is washed or white or dark the file will be smaler against that with better focused and lightened details.

I haven't played around with compressing images yet (I'm waiting for
someone to scan some of my slides). Can you explain the difference in file
size between the Peg Edwards (288 x 288, 28K) and the clump (288 x 360,
61K), only slightly larger but more than twice the data? Is the color depth
twice as great?

P.s. the pics are not of good quality, but my aim was to show not flowers, but illustrate file size subject.

Edmundas Kondratas
Kaunas, Lithuania, zone 5

eGroups Sponsor