Why recompress the files a SECOND time?

If we already compress our files to fit in the 100k guideline, why are

they being compressed AGAIN to something like 43k? I can undestand

recompressing files over 100k, but under? Looks pretty silly to me, as

compression artifacts start appearing pretty badly when you make that

much compression... (I'm normally not THAT picky about compression,

but now it's starting to get pretty bad... Is that new or did I simply

not notice it before?)

I looked at one of my recently uploaded photos which is very poorly compressed, the artifacts are very clearly visible, where in the past I don't believe they were as bad.

I noticed the same thing while looking at my and you photos. Just a quick question tough... How on earth do you manage to get so many comments? I'm officially amazed.

I think I read in another thread that photo.net is working on updating the portfolio management system. I think part of the update involves addressing this issue.

 

I'd tried to locate the thread to get the specifics but failed.

 

Anyways, I agree that this is a serious issue (at least to some people). I shot mostly insect macros and to me, fine detail was important. On some of my shots, the recompression would totally kill the fine detail.

http://www.photo.net/bboard/q-and-a-fetch-msg?msg_id=0082t4

This is a very old (and complex issue). <a href="http://www.photo.net/learn/jpeg/"</a>Jpeg Compression</a> (http://www.photo.net/learn/jpeg/) is very flexible, so compression ratios can range from 2:1 to 48:1. At one stage photo.net was short on disk space, so this may have been a reason. The other reason is that it speeds up downloads for users on dial-up modems.

. . . . . but it creates bottlenecks when you upload because we now start with 250k files in order to end up with 100k. The solution, which will be in effect at some point, is to start with a <100k image and don't change it on site at all.