Wetlook World Forum

Current time: Fri 26/04/24 01:45:47 GMT

Translate page FROM -> TO

Translate page TO <- FROM

Message # 28604.2.1

Subject: Re: Photo sites, dial-up and image size

Date: Sat 21/04/07 01:01:52 GMT

Name: Telcontar

Email: mrnemesis@ntlworld.com

Website:

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help
with running costs: (you can change amount)

Again, I'm confused as to which sites y'all think are "mine". "My" site is telcontar.net, where I typically take the time to hand-optimise every single image (as it's not an image-orientated site), but for a wetlook site it starts becoming a real pain to examine every image and check it over for artefacts or excess file size. My only wetlook site is wetinred.com, but those are only vidcaps and as such are all pretty small anyway (dimensionally, because clips aren't even at 1 MP yet) so the file sizes are going to be low anyway.

I have nothing to do with the regular images on Liquid Ladies, I leave those as I'm given them, even if they're over 1 MB. If I create sample images, I tend to optimise those well, but I can afford to introduce damage to the image as they're only throw-away previews. I don't imagine, though, that Liquid Ladies would be much fun on dial-up -- 600 kB images would get annoying, fast. I did get Steve to introduce zip files though, which I agree, are very useful. (There are alternative methods but none are as easy to use.)

I'm curious about how Wetlook U can have such small file sizes. But then, I have no idea how large the member images are. I tend to think, about 70-90 k for 640x480 is good, and 150 k for 800x600, which suggests relatively small member images. I'm not a member, so I've not sampled the member images to see how well they fare, size and quality.

In reply to Message (28604.2)

Re: Photo sites, dial-up and image size

By Anonymous - Fri 20/04/07 16:11:38 GMT

Website:

Telcontar

The sites you run all load quickly and are of a good size even for my 24k. Other photos are so big that I seldom bother to open them anymore these days. Not worth the wait. I don't understand why photos have to be larger 100k but if I had broadband, I would probably want the highest resolution I could get too. A 1.5mb photo will take at least 8 minutes to download for me with my dialup. I just don't have that kind of time. The worst are the ones that post multiple hi-res photos in one message. I can download each photo individually but it's just a pain to wait so long to find out what the photo will be.

Minumum of 10 minutes for me to download a 30 second Youtube. Most of them are not worth the wait either.

I am not blaming anyone as I am the one stuck on dial-up but things could be done for more enjoyment by more people. Using thumbs that actually have a small file size would be about the best thing as long as they refer to a larger file sized photo. I can't understand the purpose of a 1mb thumbnail. What's the point? There are better ways to do it.

Cropping photos would drastically reduce file size and bandwidth usage. Waiting 5 minutes just for the sky and scenery to load is no fun! ha!

SC usually times out before any photo is 1/3 completed.

Ah yes, it's hell living in a 21st century world and putting up with dial up!!!! ha!

In reply to Message (28604)

Photo sites, dial-up and image size

By Telcontar - mrnemesis@ntlworld.com Fri 20/04/07 10:18:33 GMT

Website:

Since MG brought up the issue of dial-up, I thought I'd ask more clearly this time -- are dial-up users happy with photo sites?

The most recent Liquid Ladies photo set, for example, has photos reaching 1 MB per image, which on dial-up would be particularly painful. On average, Liquid Ladies images are about 600 kB each, which would take a little while to get through (something like two minutes!) The thumbnails are too small to substitute as full-size images for dial-up users.

I don't know how other pay sites work, but they all seem to offer large images these days and it must be pretty uncomfortable for dial-up users to get into wetlook at all.

The sites that use Gallery 2, though -- Squishy Shoes and Tub Queens for example -- have thumbnail, medium and (extra) large image sizes all automatically generated. Dial-up users can settle on medium for the most part, and open the large images for those shots that are particularly special (and since some of them are freakin' 8 MP or something -- three times the width of my monitor -- go and have a long soak in the bath in your jeans while the modem sits and thinks about downloading a copy).

Is everyone happy with sites the way they are?

Report Abuse or Problem to Nigel at Minxmovies
If you enjoy this forum, then please make a small donation to help with running costs: (you can change amount)