I've cross-posted this as I don't really know what is the

home-newsgroup for Shoot In [SI].

The RULZ have for some time specified an image file size of 300KB and

I am wondering if this is still an appropriate size limit.

Most JPG files translate to an image size of 4 to 5 times the

compressed file size. 300KB translates to a 1.2MB ~ 1.5MB image. On a

3:2 frame ratio this translates to less than a 866 x 577 image. These

days you are hard placed to buy a laptop of less than 1280 x 800 and

desk tops come with screens about 1920 x 1200. 

Filling a 1280 x 800 screen requires about a 750KB JPG, while filling

a 1920 x 1200 takes a JPG of about 1.7MB. The 1.2Mb ~ 1.5MB size of a

JPG file corresponding to a 300 KB file is that of an a basic digital

camera of 10 years ago. In fact, it's smaller than the size of many of

the camera phones now on the market. Why are we still specifying such

a small size?

We can't be specifying this size to keep out the wealthy photographer

who can afford to out-buy the rest of us. Nor can it be to minimise

disk storage in these days of GBs and TBs. It can't even be for sake

of data transmission rate in these days when dial-up is now comprises

10% of Internet traffic. Maybe we are staying with 300KB for

historical reasons?

Does it matter?

Yes, I think it does. I tend to print large format images for the

simple reason that I think they look better. My personal feeling is

that too many of my images suffer from trying to cram them into the

size of a postage stamp. For this reason I struggle hard to squeeze

them into 298MB ~ 299MB ~ 300MB but even then I don't think the

shriveled image does justice to the original.

Have a go.

Regards,

Eric Stevens