|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
10-27-2015, 01:43 PM
|
| |
Since it's set up for it, just try it with your google account since you already have one. If you're unhappy with the results, try flickr:)
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
10-27-2015, 05:34 AM
|
| |
Which metadata are you looking at? Compare the file sizes in kB, smaller kB means more compression (assuming all other things are equal). Or use a tool like JPEGsnoop, to look more closely at the compression settings.
If you can't do custom html with a gallery, then I'm doubting you can host the images on a 3rd party website to embed into Wix and you're likely going to have to find a new website solution.
|
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
10-26-2015, 08:40 AM
|
| |
The tool definitely matters. For example, a "75" in Lightroom is pretty low on the compression scheme, closer to a 90 in other programs.
It's always a balance between speed and quality. There's no one right answer on the best balance to hit, and I think it's worth trying out the different settings to see what works best for your purposes. I'm not at all opposed to less compression, but keep your website visitors in mind, and how they're likely to be browsing your images.
Another interesting compression discussion with lots of examples, for Lightroom users:
Jeffrey Friedl's Blog |
|
Forum: Photographic Industry and Professionals
10-26-2015, 05:29 AM
|
| |
The images on your site I looked at had jpeg compression corresponding to a standard quality level of 75* with no chroma subsampling. What compression settings on what program were you applying before uploading?
This is an ok amount of compression. In most cases you'll have to look pretty close to spot differences between a setting of 75 and a setting of 100, but it depends on the image content. Most people browsing through online images won't be able to tell the difference - it's the pixel peeping photographers who will raise a stink. Lower compression settings (higher quality levels) begin to have large costs on the file size (in kilobytes) and increased load times for visitors. A slow loading website is one I'm likely to leave and never return to, so I would caution against huge changes here.
The images I had looked at on your site were around 900pix on the long side. Larger images of course go towards longer load times. Personally, I'm fine with 900, but a little larger here also won't hurt much.
*which corresponds to the 75 setting in many programs, GIMP, Faststone, Irfanview, and many more. Some programs, notably Photoshop & Lightroom, use a different scale.
|
