Images are important, but you must be cautious. This page will load slowly, so be patient. The image on the left is the original, at 105,000 bytes or almost 40 seconds to load. As ArmorCore uses this image in print, I suspect that it was optimized for print and not the web.
The image on the right was the result of running the image through [link no longer works]. The image was cut to about 32,000 bytes (about 12 seconds) with almost no degradation. What do you think?
[2/2008 - I am now using Photoshop Expressions and getting the smallest files ever.]
The 32,000 byte version is on the left side. By degrading the image somewhat, we can further reduce the size to 16,000 bytes (6 seconds). You can see the degraded areas in the shadow in the left bottom corner of the right image. This image is very acceptable to me, and most viewers will never see the difference, yet the image appears almost 30 seconds faster!
By degrading and shrinking the image to 75% of the original size, we can get the image down to 11,000 bytes or 4 seconds. (Right side) This is big enough to get the concept across and very fast.
Which is the best for your user? Send me an email with your thoughts.
Publisher - 4specs