| 12:53 pm on Oct 9, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Sometimes I go for the obvious, but are your images sized specifically or are they larger and you size them by setting width and height? I know a lot of sites tend to use larger images, say 200 pixels square, then resize them to say 100 pixels square using width and height. Regardless of the browser, they often look bad depending on the image.
| 3:16 pm on Oct 9, 2001 (gmt 0)|
From my experience your bet is to use jpegs or adaptive gifs and cuts big images up into smaller pieces.
| 7:59 pm on Oct 9, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Thanks Marshall & Seth for responding.
My images are sized specifically.
What do you mean by 'cutting big images into smaller pieces'?
The photos are already in jpeg format. Do you know what programs I could use to convert the photos to adaptive gifs (or progressive 3-pass jpegs as mentioned in NetMechanic) to overcome this problem.
| 8:17 pm on Oct 9, 2001 (gmt 0)|
"What do you mean by 'cutting big images into smaller pieces'?"
AOL's compression seems to have problems with big images. To get around this you take a big image and cut it up into smaller pieces and then combine the smaller images with tables
Image Ready & Firworks seem to be the most popular, although I'm sure you can find cheaper alternatives....
| 9:10 pm on Oct 9, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Thanks for the tip Seth. I will have to see what AOL does to smaller images. And have a look at those programs.
| 12:53 am on Oct 10, 2001 (gmt 0)|
Just an FYI on aol image compression
It is a setting that you can disable and show the images non compressed. The default setting for aol users is "show compressed images" but you can change it.
I offer that in case you have a client go spaz, you can just tell them to fix their settings.