Let me start out by noting that I do a lot of graphic design type stuff for work, so I know how to use the features of Photoshop and Fireworks to minimize file size while losing as little quality as possible. But to knock a file down to the "low" quality limit of 48k, you'll have to either shrink it to about 200x300 pixels or use jpeg compression to the fullest and shrink it that way. One way you end up with something that's not much greater than a thumbnail photo in size, and the other you end up with a pixelated blurry mess. I recently submitted a photo topo which had some text and lines drawn on it. The size limits resulted in a file that's lost much of detail on the rock and has rendered the text difficult to read. Similar problems exist with the medium size photos. A much better quality photo could be uploaded if the file size was just a little larger. Both of the current limits won't let you get anywhere near the dimensional limits unless the "photo" is a few black and white lines. Suggesting a more realistic dimensional size might help those that don't understand what a "small" or "medium" sized image should be.

I would suggest something in the range of 60-70k for the low quality size and something around 140-150k for the medium quality. If not, it seems that some topo photos might need to be submittied at medium rather than low to be useful to the routes database.

I know web space is expensive, but most people don't run their monitors at 640x480 anymore. A photo sized at under 48k is really small.

~Adam~

Let me start out by noting that I do a lot of graphic design type stuff for work, so I know how to use the features of Photoshop and Fireworks to minimize file size while losing as little quality as possible. But to knock a file down to the "low" quality limit of 48k, you'll have to either shrink it to about 200x300 pixels or use jpeg compression to the fullest and shrink it that way. One way you end up with something that's not much greater than a thumbnail photo in size, and the other you end up with a pixelated blurry mess. I recently submitted a photo topo which had some text and lines drawn on it. The size limits resulted in a file that's lost much of detail on the rock and has rendered the text difficult to read. Similar problems exist with the medium size photos. A much better quality photo could be uploaded if the file size was just a little larger. Both of the current limits won't let you get anywhere near the dimensional limits unless the "photo" is a few black and white lines. Suggesting a more realistic dimensional size might help those that don't understand what a "small" or "medium" sized image should be.

I would suggest something in the range of 60-70k for the low quality size and something around 140-150k for the medium quality. If not, it seems that some topo photos might need to be submittied at medium rather than low to be useful to the routes database.

I know web space is expensive, but most people don't run their monitors at 640x480 anymore. A photo sized at under 48k is really small.

~Adam~

I think a newer version of PS might help me a little too... I've had better results using Fireworks 3 than the old PS 5 that I have. It seems to compress a little better without losing quite as much. Still, as Climbs4fun noted, the limit seems a little low.

eric: When I implemented the rezise thing .. disk space was an issue .. I think tim has sent more HDD's so maybe that issue has been resolved so we can serve up different sizes.

Oh yes, I know. It's still an issue. That entire directory, with only a couple of days worth of originals, is 1.4 GB, and I think you can count on that being 3-4 times current levels if you have to have multiple sizes. Say 5 GB now, growing at what crazy rate? I'd guess, conservatively if we did that we'd be at 20-40 GB by the end of next year. Wild guess.

But if you're going with that calculation, if you really think about it 40 GB isn't a whole lot of stuff. These days you can buy a 120 GB harddrive IDE for $100, and about $200 for SCSI.

just wondering... how many people that post actually paid for photoshop?

It is if you need to back it up and it's only one component of a large and complex website. We have more drives installed now, but space needs to be budgeted.

Just a thought on another issue with large size pictures is that those pics are much easier to rip off the site and no monetary payment goes to the author of this material. The smaller size pics are like samplers and commercial interest would have to go to the author and ask for permission to use a larger sized original at the commensurate compensation scales.

Oh yes, I know. It's still an issue. That entire directory, with only a couple of days worth of originals, is 1.4 GB, and I think you can count on that being 3-4 times current levels if you have to have multiple sizes. Say 5 GB now, growing at what crazy rate? I'd guess, conservatively if we did that we'd be at 20-40 GB by the end of next year. Wild guess.

But if you're going with that calculation, if you really think about it 40 GB isn't a whole lot of stuff. These days you can buy a 120 GB harddrive IDE for $100, and about $200 for SCSI.

I'm sure if enough of us donating a couple of buys, this definitely can be accomplished. I, for one, would be willing to donate to see some higher quality photos. I've seen many that I'd love to get in 1280x1024 or more to be used as my desktop wallpaper.