Pictures size for TGP

[quotealex]

I'm thinking of resubmitting galleries to tgp but don't want to get burned with the bandwidth cost. So I want to reduce the size of each gallery to the minimal allowed.

What is the minimal pixels and dick size and color per image allowed to post on tgp?

[breest]

i would make all the thumbs under 5k and the actual pictures under 25k, but thats just me =)

-Breest

[Fart]

I´d make the thumbs not to small (75x75 or more) so that surfers click only those pics that they are interested in. (Don´t need to click on a thumb just to see what is on that pic)

Big pics I´d make 15 to max. 30 kb

[Jonas]

I have my thumbs at 90 height
and my big pictures at about 350 height..

Use Thumbnailer at http://www.smalleranimals.com it's a great program to resize images and build galleries.

[basschick]

i'm with breest on this one! 25k or under is perfect. small enough not to kill you, but high quality enough not to suck.

i make my thumbs either 100 tall or 100 wide, at 75% quality, and they average from 3.5 - 5k a piece.

[quotealex]

Thanks for the info.

If I get this right, 75% in image quality and 90 pixel in height are the minimal I should use for each thump for galleries I submit to TGPs?

[basschick]

yeah, 'cause fuzzy or tiny thumbs won't get you listed on the good tgp's.

good luck!

[Hi Octane]

if you use high quality thumbs, that are large enough so the surfer/reviewer can see WTF is going on, you can wind up saving yourself some bandwidth.

Say you have 10 thumbs. You usually compres them and make them real small, so they are like 1-2kb each. You might not get listed, and people can't see what the pic is, so they clcik the thumbs more. More server requests, and more full sized images loaded.
All because the thumbs were 10kb total.

Now you try a ten thumb page, with the thumbs at 4kb. They can be high quality, and a good size. I have never seen a gallery have all the thumbs loaded equally. I mean, do they click on the early pics in a series, or do they just want the pay-off? Let them see, and they will click thumbs less often. And, if you have a nice layout with great thumbs, you will probably get away with smaller full size pics. 5kb thumb leading to 18kb pic http://bbs.adultwebmasterinfo.com/ubb/wink.gif
Steve

[bigdog]

what software do you guys use to compress images

[Fart]

Batch It Pro
everything in one go, batch picture manipulation
- makes xx % gif or jpeg, xx height & width
- resolution dots per inch adjustable
- rename file names
- make galleries with thumbs, define thumbs size, thumbs per line & per page, linked to pic or html etc...

[basschick]

i use photoshop - among its many features, it does batch.

[WETDOG]

Well if you dont have photoshop you can try superjpg on my link site below:
http://www.freeadultwebmaster.com/freesoftware2.html

it has a image % feature standard is %80 on that program then you can just lower it till the file is small but still looks good.

Wetdog

[quotealex]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Hi Octane:
if you use high quality thumbs, that are large enough so the surfer/reviewer can see WTF is going on, you can wind up saving yourself some bandwidth.</font>

Isn't better to make thumbs of lower quality so that the surfer get frustrated and want to click on your sponsors banners to view better pictures?

Isn't my goal to make the surfer feel that he is wasting his time on my free site and should instead go to my sponsors to get the really good stuff?

[Hi Octane]

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Isn't better to make thumbs of lower quality so that the surfer get frustrated and want to click on your sponsors banners to view better pictures?

Isn't my goal to make the surfer feel that he is wasting his time on my free site and should instead go to my sponsors to get the really good stuff?</font>

I wouldn't rely on thumbs for that. I would point out that they get way better shit at a premium porn site like (insert your sponsor here). Text is more powerful than images, since we don't produce the images - and text loads real fast.

[kevinl]

Would't it be better to have smaller higher quality pics?
If you are trying to sell a sponsor and part of your pitch is that they can see more of this at XXXX sponsor and the quality is poor then why would they join.
If you don't tie your content to your sponsor then why would they want to visit your sponsor?
I see galleries all the time that have small, fuzzy pics and they say "see thousands more pics at XXXX". But if they look like shit then would want to pay to see more.

[richard]

it depends how you want to try and sell your sponsor.

Are you selling the surfer "more of the same inside" or are you selling them something else, "want hot live sex shows?".

I feel you can only do the "see more of the same" pitch if you have content that they like, obviously they do not want more if the pics are shite (res/size).

just a thought?

[Hi Octane]

I get around that "poor quality pics on gallery - what's on the site?" problem with a simple sentence. In like a -3 font size at the top of the gallery image table, I add a small line of text - something like "all images on this site are resized and compressed 75% to save bandwidth".

Basically, I point out that I am giving them lower quality samples, and that they HAVE to pay for the good shit. Because even if you gave them 35kb full size pics, they would still be a piece of shit compared to paysite images, some of which can be larger than 150kb. I have a friend who dislikes free sites/tgps just for this reason - the pics aren't worth saving to his hard drive, in his opinion. He is a newsgroup surfer, so he's been spoiled.
Steve

[quotealex]

Hi Octane. This is good stuff.