by crikeyit is a bit on the tad large size innit
(
discomeats This canoe,
Thu 13 Mar 2008, 21:07,
archived)
exceptthat this is the link i got after uploading it to the site...
don't blame me, blame whoever coded these forums.
AND it's under the recommended pixel sizes.
(,
Thu 13 Mar 2008, 21:21,
archived)
don't blame me, blame whoever coded these forums.
AND it's under the recommended pixel sizes.
ok, I'll bite, because clearly you seem confusedthey prefer images to be 50k or less
the forums don't control the size (as in number of bytes, as in 243K) YOU do.
Try using some compression.
computers don't work by magic, they do what you make them do, so I will blame you, so ner!
NER NER NER NER NER NER NER
(the forums don't control the size (as in number of bytes, as in 243K) YOU do.
Try using some compression.
computers don't work by magic, they do what you make them do, so I will blame you, so ner!
NER NER NER NER NER NER NER
discomeats This canoe,
Thu 13 Mar 2008, 21:28,
archived)
or you could learn to optimise your own work.just cranking up the JPEG compression would've been enough - I mostly use twenty percent.
Rapitinui get in the cage and I'll give you a treat,
Thu 13 Mar 2008, 21:30,
archived)