still on quality of photos posted…
this is becoming an obsession. let me rephrase that, it has long been an interest of mine that photos i post in the net must retain their quality even at a low file size. it wasnt an easy search – i asked friends, used google search and browsed through books, and yet it was quiet a frustrating search (yes – patience was tested). the goal — a photo file size of 100 kb or less that still looks really great (see previous posting of first try – looks disturbingly awful). i have no qualms posting photos as it is without this fuss of having a file size that is less than 100kb but since i started this website and knowing fully well that i dont have the luxury of an unlimited webspace, this now came in as top priority. and of course, on top of which, the ethics on avoiding email overload when sending out pictures to friends and families. works on my photo archives can wait for a bit.
here i am again testing if it works… at 72 ppi (as has always been adviced)… small files at 97 and 100 kb…
the only two photos i got right now are those taken of micah and sharon when micah was 8 months old.
postscript: i think it worked. the trick: photo resized at 8 inches on document size (on width) and resolution at 72 ppi (can be changed to 300 ppi for printing purposes) according to scott kelby. on saving – adjust to quality nearest to the 100kb mark according to derick , s.k. says 10 is the best though it moves up the file size to > 100 kb.
now my life can move on.
ah there is something else, i havent tested it yet on colored photos. it will be for the next posting. cheers.