Re: Hogs

Subject: Re: Hogs
From: Roy Anderson <royanderson -at- MINDSPRING -dot- COM>
Date: Mon, 2 Nov 1998 02:12:41 -0500

Hayward Johnson wrote:
> *Sigh* Will we never learn?
> >Robert Maxey wrote:
> >>
> >> >>Forget it! I recently tried to use word to put together a catalog and
> >> >>it kept crashing. With the version I was using, Word 97, I found I could
> >> >>only put in around 3 large photos before it started acting up.
> >>
> > Roy Anderson wrote:
> >
> >Insofar as the photographs are concerned, try saving them as JPEG with
> >a competent photo tool and reducing their quality to a lower but fully
> >acceptable level. You can save much RAM doing this.
> >
Hayward Johnson wrote:

> Actually, GIFs are more efficient, size-wise, and more compliant web-wise.
> And: PaintShop Pro (way less pricey than a photo tool) handles photos pretty
> darn well.
> > Roy Anderson wrote:

Hayward, I assumed Robert was speaking of printed catalogs, not online catalogs.
JPEG is still--IMHO--a better tool than GIF for maintaining photographic image
fidelity for photographs targeted for print. This is also true if one wishes to
exhibit quality photographic images on the web, regardless of how viewers might
react to the slow display times that might be involved. GIF is more suitable for
the web, particularly if icons, clip art, lower-quality photographs, and fast
download times are of major consideration.

Assumptions are dangerous in this business, correct? :-)

Take care.


From ??? -at- ??? Sun Jan 00 00:00:00 0000=

Previous by Author: Re: Hogs
Next by Author: Re: SCREAM CAPTURES
Previous by Thread: Re: Hogs
Next by Thread: Re: Hogs

What this post helpful? Share it with friends and colleagues:

Sponsored Ads