yeah er sorry
personally i dont think t would be as effective if it was smaller. if you read the little profile thing then youll know that ive been with b3ta about a day. so im still learning
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2003, 15:01,
archived)
it's because you've got all that detail
but it's wasted detail anyhow... GIF it, PNG it, or accept it'll get lost.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2003, 15:04,
archived)
I know but you were told this morning
You stuff is well made if you can make this kind of quality you'll be fine just learn how to make it smaller and link to a bigger one like everyone else does, that way you won't piss off the grumpy old silver surfers like me and *******
thank you
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2003, 15:04,
archived)
thank you
there are 7 stars there
I hope you are not referring to me. I may be silver but I never surf. I hobble.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2003, 15:08,
archived)
you saw through my cunning code
BYE everyone
driving to wales for Easter
be nice
love and xxxxzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2003, 15:09,
archived)
driving to wales for Easter
be nice
love and xxxxzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
It can be that size in
actual width by length, we're talking about the size of in K's.
That makes no sense does it.
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2003, 15:06,
archived)
That makes no sense does it.
not what he meant
it isn't the physical size that matters, it is the file size.
There will be an 'optimisation' setting when you save your JPGs (check the help if you don't know how).
If you set it at about 90%, you will see no noticeable loss in image quality, but the file size will decrease dramatically (to about 80K for that pic).
( ,
Thu 17 Apr 2003, 15:06,
archived)
There will be an 'optimisation' setting when you save your JPGs (check the help if you don't know how).
If you set it at about 90%, you will see no noticeable loss in image quality, but the file size will decrease dramatically (to about 80K for that pic).