I like to post images so you can see them here in the message rather than providing an outside link to the picture at another website. Here's how I do it from Mediafire, another file hosting site. 1. Post the picture to your favorite permanent location on the Internet 2. Open the picture in a different window and adjust to the size I want 3. Right-click in the picture and select Copy Image Location Then in my GardenWeb message, I use the HTML code for viewing an image. It looks like this <img src="yourURLhere"> The quotes are important - they belong there no matter what. Inside the quotes you paste your URL location. It will probably end with the extension .jpg. Thus when I type the following code into my message <img src="http://www.mediafire.com/imgbnc.php/4038da7fd3132a018d9998f4f9185f1f4g.jpg"> I get the following picture of the borderline between a buffalo grass lawn on the right and a scrubby fescue lawn on the left.

There are two generations answering this question. I am retired and would rather use my tower PC and old flip phone. Since I'm home most of the time it is easy to send a quick email to any of the kids to read on their smart phones. Can just answer or hang up with the flip. My upgrade is due and need a new phone. The darn flip phones are the same price and now with additional options which are of no use to me. The larger phone screens are nice, but still need my darn glasses to read anything of importance and it is too easy to go somewhere into cyberspace not wanted. Admission though, I would definitely use the app to compare pricing/stores. Can't tell you how many times someone has to show me a pic they have on their phone....I either nod or say something nice unless my glasses are nearby. The kids have accommodated me by sending pics through email. And I'll hang on to my Nikon D70 with all the functions in my head. The gathering of old people not wanting smart phones will fade away and this is not too far away. "New" old people will be the generation already skilled. But I have a vision of needing the old magnifying screens being put over them, those used in front of the first TVs in the 40s. Even an Ipad drives me nuts due to size in getting around for all I want to do. Am an ex IT person, 40 years of computer evolution experience. Still love new software and learning more. I like my fast access, multiple software programs and a "fat" built computer with a 42" screen for photography. We can be set in our ways, but there are physical limitations which also direct us to what works for our needs. Regarding the 700 a month. Enough people, aps, games, online use can easily jump to this. Family plan or not.. My son downloads books, usually once a month while he is sleeping. The data used is about 600 for this one shot. Phones used for business can easily run the monthly charge posted. This reminds me of one of my favorite commercials from Office Depot. Grandma is taking pictures of her kids with a hand stapler she picked up instead of the camera they gave her. My humor may be off the map.

The short story? Upload your photos to photobucket using the "800 by 600" pixel upload option. Done. You'll get a small file size but a photo that will display well. To answer your questions, here's the long story. And I'm not kidding. It's long. Way too long: "What I'm also trying to understand is the whole process: I take a picture with my 6.1 Kodak camera. The picture size is therefore________" Your file size depends on the settings on your camera at which you are taking photos. Most cameras offer a couple of choices, like "Image Quality: FINE/NORMAL/BASIC" and/or "Image size: LARGE/MEDIUM/SMALL". Those choices will define the amount of jpeg compression that your photo undergoes and thus they will define the size of the file that comes out of your camera. Generically a 6MP camera is probably putting out jpeg photos in the 2-3MB range. "Jpeg" is a compression program. It's a program that reduces the MB file size of the program by discarding redundant pixel color information from the photo's file for similar-colored pixels in the photo. It does not get rid of or discard any pixels. It just "averages" out red/ green/blue information assigned to similar colored pixels. jpeg looks at the photo's individual pixel information and says "these reddish pixels that are next to each other in this photo are so close in color, I'm going to consider them the exact same color". So it keeps the R/G/B information for one of the pixels, discards the RGB info for the other two, and assigns that saved RGB info to all three pixels. That allows your file to be smaller without destroying the overall visual integrity of the photo when you view it. If a file were to be over-compressed...too much information thrown away...then it can get ugly looking, very blocky. "When I upload it to Photobucket it remains 6.1 or do they change it as they "store it"__________" Using the default settings on PB it'll be uploaded as a small file. A MUCH SMALLER file. You've discovered the "Customize Your Upload Options" and you can use that to get a larger and more usable file size uploaded to your PB account. More about that later. "Of course talking about a picture in terms of 800x600 vs MB is confusing. " Your photo is made up of little dots, or to simplify, "pixels". If you have a photo that is "800 by 600", that's 800 pixels or dots wide by 600 pixels/dots tall. That's how "big" your photo appears. 800 dots wide. 600 dots tall. Each of those dots or pixels is a color, all those little colored dots together make up the photo. If each of those pixels is a different color, then the file size (the "MB" or "KB") will be large because the file has to store red/green/blue information for each and every one of those tiny pixels. If you take a photo of a piece of red paper, then theoretically the photo's jpeg file size will be smaller because so many of the pixels will be the same red color. The file doesn't have to "remember" as much red/green/blue information even though the number of pixels in the photo is the same. So if you take your glorious 6MP photo that's 3000 by 2000 pixels and upload it to Photobucket at the 320 by 240 pixel option, PB is going to throw way a lot of pixels. You uploaded a detailed file with 3000 times 2000, or 6 million pixels, and Photobucket is going to throw away and discard over 5.9 million of them! Gone forever! It'll display that photo small, 320 pixels by 240 pixels, so to the eye it will still look okay at that small size. But if you try to blow up or magnify the photo, pixels will have to be created to fill in the "holes", and the color information for those created pixels will be guessed at based upon what the neighboring pixels look like. You'll end up with a blocky looking photo. So the picture can have a physical size defined in terms of how many dots or pixels make up the picture. 3000 x 2000, 800 x 600, 320 x 240, etc. The pixels define how big or small the picture will be represented on your computer monitor or on a piece of paper when printed out. The photo file size, in MB or KB, is how much information is assigned to remember the color information of the pixels that make up the photo. 6MP is a large photo and will take longer to upload than a 1MP file. It's how much space the photo will take up n your computer's hard drive. I'm going to run you through a few examples, I hope this helps to clarify: I have a 2MB photo on my computer. I just uploaded it to photobucket, during the upload photobucket automatically reduced the file size from 2MB down to 38kb. Ouch! It reduced the pixel size (or the number of "dots" that make up the photo) from 3341 x 2217 (3341 pixels wide by 2217 pixels tall) to 310 x 212. That was done using the default upload setting of 320 by 240. This file is tiny, only 38kb, so it'll upload fast. But the small file can limit the quality of the photo seen by the viewer. Here is the quality of the 320 by 240 photo: By adding a "Width=" designator to the HTML code, I can make your browser display the photo larger. Previously it showed at 320 pixels wide, because that's it's size of the photobucket file. I'll add "Width=800" to make it display 800 pixels wide. Again, it's a 38kb file size, 319 x 212 photo that's being forced to display 800 pixels wide. Where did the extra pixels come from? They were made up, their color information copied from neighboring pixels in the photo's file. Since they had to be guessed at, the photo looks blocky due to the groupings of exactly-colored pixels all clumped next to one another: The photo shows larger, but it's blockier. Now going into photobucket's upload settings I chose "Best possible quality (while staying 1mb or less)". A large file size...but not ridiculous. Photobucket uploaded my same original 2MB, 3342 x 2217 pixel photo as a 745kb file that is 2301 pixels wide by 1527 pixels tall. At 745kb it's a large file size so it'll upload slower, but with all those pixels the resolution will be quite good. When I now have gardenweb show this new photo file at its native resolution, it looks like this: Since most people have their computer's screen displays set at 800-1200 pixels wide, this 2301 pixel wide photo causes you to have to scroll left/right to take it all in. It's not viewer friendly. So now I'll limit the photo by adding a "Width=800" to the html code and it'll show better. A better size, and with nice resolution: There actually is a point to this post, and it's this: Photobucket has an 800 by 600 upload selection. If you want a "bang for your buck" upload selection, use the 800 x 600 choice. Uploading my 2MB file using the 800 by 600 option gave me a 134kb file with pixel dimensions of 800 wide by 530 tall. A very manageable file size that will upload quickly, and a pixel size that will display nicely: Still awake? Not me. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

You can do it within Picasa. Highlight your picture (or pictures) and from the tool bar at bottom of the screen choose "Export". From there you'll get options to control size, image quality, etc. 800 px is fine for GardenWeb.