>The images on Richard's site are between 40k and 90k in size.  Just
>the right size for the intended purpose.  And no annoying thumbnails
>that require clicking.  His pictures are big enough to see adequate
>detail, but still offer reasonable load times.
>
>Notice the sizing of his pictures also, they are about 800 pixels
>wide x 530 high (11.1" x 7.4") at 72 dpi.
>That renders a good size for 1024 x 768 and up monitors, no lateral
>scrolling.  Additionally, anything more than 72 dpi is not required
>for viewing on computer screens.  So keep it at 72 dpi for the web.

I use PhotoShop. I crop the image first, which doesn't necessarily
leave them all of the same shape. Tough...

I adjust contrast & brightness, add text or sharpen if necessary
(need to flatten image or it'll be a huge multilayered file) and
adjust to 800 pixels along the longest side.

>A look at Richard's code shows an efficient and simple text only
>page. Web designers today seem to be unable to resist using every
>possible gimmick available.

Indeed... why have "pretty" graphics which can make a page take
minutes to load (or even stall) with a so-called "dialup" connection?
Sites like that bug the heck out of me. It can make a search (eg for
a B&M shifter for a Porsche 996) take hours... and still get nowhere.

Plaintext rules!
--
Andrew Grebneff
Dunedin
New Zealand
Fossil preparator
Seashell, Macintosh, VW/Toyota van nut
� Opinions stated are mine, not those of Otago University
"There is water at the bottom of the ocean"  - Talking Heads