These pictures are not on the web. These pictures are my digital pictures
that I keep on my machine, and I keep high quality files that would be
suitable for printing. I just happen to like the web page format for saving
my pictures rather than a flat file format. The “Who, What, When, Where” of
each photograph is also stored in an Access dB and clicking on the dB
description creates a hyperlink that finds the actual photograph on the web
page. In addition, I have an Access dB going back to 1983 by day and 1945 by
month that is cross referenced to over 500 rolls of film with another 1,000+
to be added. I do know something about image quality.
I still don’t know why FP2002 opens a page with thirty 3K thumbnails for
editing instantly, and FP2003 fails.
"Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon®)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
Yes, seriously - you can easily optimize many of your huge images way way
down and never notice a difference on the web. There's absolutely no reason
to use image files of the size you have there...over 300K. Period.
And you ducked my question; why are you storing unused unoptimized images
within FP?
"Pete Beall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Lets get serious, “optimized down to 30K with no visible difference”? My
> photo files are high resolution and run 2000k to 4000k, but the response
> just ducks the question.
>
> The page that FP2002 loads and FP2003 won’t load is only thumbnails of 3K
> or
> so. The question again, why the difference, and is there anything that
> will
> make 2003 load at an acceptable pace?
>
> "Rob Giordano (Crash Gordon®)" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote
> in message news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> I'm thinkin'; you have a lot of really large image files...you should
> optimize them. There's no reason to have images of 400K each - that same
> image could easily be optimized down to 30K with no visible difference.
>
> Why do you keep dig. photos on a local-only page? Why put that burden in
> FP,
> why not keep them in a normal folder and import them when needed? ----
> AFTER
> you've optimized them of course :-)
>
>
> "Pete Beall" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I finally upgraded from FP 2002 to 2003. I was getting used to the
> > interface
> > on a simple small page, and then switched to my digital photo page. I
> > store
> > my digital photos on a local-only page, several pages per month, and
> > each
> > page containing thumbnails linked to the full sized picture. Using 2002
> > the
> > page would populate in the blink of an eye; switching to 2003, the page
> > would take TEN MINUTES to populate. Removing 2003 and going back to
> > 2002,
> > no
> > problem.
> >
> > I couldn't Google an answer to the problem. Obviously I'll stick with
> > 2002
> > until this problem is solved.
> >
> >
> > --
> > www.petebeall.net
> >
> >
>
>
Similar Threads
