From: dimitar@pontix.com   
      
   "Frederick Burroughs"  wrote in message   
   news:129nq6i9nnuf606@corp.supernews.com...   
   > Dimitar Bojantchev wrote:   
   >> What is your connection speed? I have taken the road   
   >> of posting photos in the 100-150K size range (with smaller thumbnails)   
   >> because   
   >> there are just too many small photos out there that are hard to look at.   
   >> The   
   >> speeds will go up, but the bad photos will remain.   
   >>   
   >>   
   > I feel the 100-150K range properly matches the popular technology and   
   > connection speeds available today. And, it provides for sufficient detail   
   > to portray *most* mushrooms. Did you arrive at this size range from   
   > experience, and is it supported by some kind of professional consensus?   
      
   Hi Frederick,   
      
   I have come up with this rule purely by experience:   
      
   1) How much detail can you put on a computer screen today with the   
   resolution it provides -- ideally up to 200-300K photo would be   
   sufficient. If the photo is 2MG, only a fraction of it can be seen. I've   
   excluded color depth fromt he discussion. We're talking averages.   
      
   2) I have a fast connection at home, but I tried to show some photos to   
   a friend at an Internet caffee overseas and I got a first rate sensitivity   
   training that size does matter...   
      
   So, here is the compromise.   
      
   Regards,   
      
           D.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)