1. Missed the live Ask the Expert event?
    Not to worry. Check out the archived thread of the Q&A with Ken Hutcheson, President of U.S. Lawns, and the LawnSite community on the Franchising Forum.

    Dismiss Notice

website help needed!

Discussion in 'Digital Marketing' started by SouthernYankee, Aug 12, 2005.

  1. tonygreek

    tonygreek LawnSite Gold Member
    Posts: 3,391

    no offense, varsity, but in no way should someone convert photos, such as JPGs, to GIFs in order to conserve space. it's the exact opposite. GIF is for flat color, JPG is for photo reproduction. photos as GIFs are larger, and of lesser image quality, than a similar JPG image.

    case in point is your top banner on your own website. your image, header-top-left-1.gif, if divided to separate the photo from the flat color striping would yield similar quality at 25k or so for the photo portion, and 3.85k for the flat-color gif portion. as it is now, it's 88k as a single GIF.

    tony
     
  2. Varsity L&G

    Varsity L&G LawnSite Senior Member
    Posts: 418

    Tony, after reading what you posted I did a test with PS and you are correct JPG files when comparing side by side with comparable compression and to get a photo quality image the JPG image is on top each time.

    I have always used my JPG images when I create a layout and have never converted a photo to GIF. I think it would be OK for a graphic but not a photo.

    YOU ARE DEAD RIGHT!

    Learn something new everyday. I wish I had done that test before my last post.

    Here is what I come up with the top file is the JPG. GIF sucks for photo's!

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG]

    test.jpg

    test.gif
     
  3. tonygreek

    tonygreek LawnSite Gold Member
    Posts: 3,391

    glad to help, varsity. without taking up bandwidth to further a point you've already made with your test images, i was able to knock another 30k or so off of your jeep's 73.4k test.jpg image, while maintaining a very similar quality.

    tony
     

Share This Page