Thumbnail image size

[1StopSurplus]

I am creating a website that will have pages with 24 thumbnail images on them. The way I planned on setting the pages up was to use the URLs for the full size 6" x 6" images (that range in size anywhere from 50 to 100 kb) and just resize to 100 x 100.

Like this...

img src="image.jpg" height="100" width="100"


My question is, will the page be loading 24 images that are 50 to 100 kb or loading 24 small images that are much lower kb?

I don't want these thumbnail pages to take forever to load for someone w/ a 56k modem. Should I instead create smaller versions of all my photos and use those for my thumbnail links?

[darco9x2]

they will be full size as kb. and also you may have to worry about stretched lines. its much better to resize in an image editor and use them.

[djr33]

Darco is exactly right.

However, there is an advantage to stretching them as you are planning.
That way, they load once. Then, when you load the full size image, it loads right away.

Downside: Slow to load the first time.
Upside: load only 100kb, instead of 110kb (assuming the thumbnail is 10k itself).

So... food for thought.

but... yeah, it will load the full size image and it is ALWAYS better to resize in a photo app, unless you are interested in using the same image to save overall downloading time.



Example: I had a page with a mouseover for displaying an big image from rolling over thumbnails. The thumbnails were the same file as what was displayed, so they loaded in the big part right away when I rolled over the small ones. It's useful at times.


but... in your case, people might only view 3 of the 10 images or whatever, meaning you'd be better off having them download 10 10kb images plus the 3 100kb images, than having them download ALL 10 100kb images only.