very elementary size question

T
Posted By
translatoriaWIPE
Aug 8, 2003
Views
226
Replies
7
Status
Closed
My 656 k jpg image when saved for the Web becomes a 125,1 k gif. Which one is heavier? In other words: what does the comma mean? (I know Americans use comma’s where we use points and vice versa – I think – but still find this very confusing).
—
Groet, Adriana.
[Gravity is a myth. The Earth sucks.]
Related Tags
question size

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

NS
Nancy S
Aug 8, 2003
Adriana,

The comma there has no significance that I can think of, but I’m thinking the gif would be smaller as it contains so few colors compared to the jpg. Maybe you converted to a gif for the transparency ability, but your image will certainly have tons fewer colors in it. If you knew that, then everything is good.

Nancy
T
translatoriaWIPE
Aug 8, 2003
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:09:11 -0700, Nancy S wrote:

Maybe you converted to a gif for the transparency ability, but your image will certainly have tons fewer colors in it. If you knew that, then everything is good.

Thank you. No, I did not know it but always understood one should make the image as small as possible for the web and the colours don’t show up there as we would want them to anyway.

So: yes, now I know that the comma is of no significance, I am quite happy with the slimming down of my jpg.

—
Groet, Adriana.
[Gravity is a myth. The Earth sucks.]
T
translatoriaWIPE
Aug 8, 2003
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 08:25:09 -0700, Richard Coencas wrote:

The rule of thumb is use JPEG when you want continuous colors like in photos and use GIF for graphics where you have limited or solid colors.

Thanks for bringing me up to date!
What about the weight issue, though?
—
Groet, Adriana.
[Gravity is a myth. The Earth sucks.]
CS
Chuck Snyder
Aug 8, 2003
Adriana: It looks like the 656k JPEG is being converted into a 125.1 k GIF, which is about one quarter the size of the original JPEG. That would make sense, as GIF throws away much of the color information found in a JPEG. So the GIF would definitely be smaller.

Chuck
PL
Paul L UK
Aug 8, 2003
Adriana

It looks like it could have been a decimal point. Smaller file, lets show smaller figures.

Paul
JF
Jodi Frye
Aug 9, 2003
Adrianna, the weight issue ? Using GIF instead of JPEG compression for web you will be choosing quantity ( or lack there of ) over quality. I try not to go below 70 for Jpeg compression but i have done it…while gritting my teeth.
T
translatoriaWIPE
Aug 9, 2003
On Fri, 8 Aug 2003 17:15:17 -0700, Jodi Frye wrote:

Using GIF instead of JPEG compression for web you will be choosing quantity ( or lack there of ) over quality.

Thank you all for your responses – as always verr helpful and friendly. —
Groet, Adriana.
[Gravity is a myth. The Earth sucks.]

How to Improve Photoshop Performance

Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections