Having copped a lot of shit for image size in the past
has led me to express my rather forthright views on whether my image has been sized correctly or not.
Oh & it is only 175k.
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:03,
archived)
Oh & it is only 175k.
It's not like
I'm paying for extra baggage to get on the plane.
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:07,
archived)
There are currently 54 images on this page, including images in replies, etc.
If they all stick to the FAQ, that is a maximum of about 5 and a half meg to download.
If however they were all 175K like yours is, that would be nearly 10 meg to download.
That's why there's a filesize in the FAQ, not to persecute individual images, but to keep the board ticking over smoothly.
Otherwise it would all grind to shit.
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:13,
archived)
If however they were all 175K like yours is, that would be nearly 10 meg to download.
That's why there's a filesize in the FAQ, not to persecute individual images, but to keep the board ticking over smoothly.
Otherwise it would all grind to shit.
With that extra 75k
People on capped bandwidth could have seen 2 more lolcock images, you insensitive bastard!
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:05,
archived)
am i missing something or is there no logic behind that statement?
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:05,
archived)
I'll be gittish and antsy
before you can be gittish and antsy at me....or summat.
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:06,
archived)
Ah what an excellent tactic.
is it that hard to scale optimise in ps?
it's about 4 clicks in gimp...
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:08,
archived)
it's about 4 clicks in gimp...
So if everyone is jumping off a cliff....you're the one who follows
clever thinking I say!
( ,
Tue 7 Jul 2009, 10:06,
archived)