RJT>> Start out with a .gif file that's up around 600-700K,  and
RJT>> removing this sort of junk cuts the size in half.  Convert it to
RJT>> .jpg and the end result is down around 40-60k!  I guess that
RJT>> padding lets them look like they're filling up a cdrom,  when in
RJT>> reality they're not doing anything close.

WC>> Someone sent me a PDF with just a short message and photo, around
WC>> .5 meg, later sent same photo JPG, 66K and the image was larger.

 RJT> The jpeg format is compact,  but the compression method is
 RJT> "lossy" I'm told. The thing is,  if I do a conversion from one
 RJT> to another and the result looks okay to me,  then it doesn't
 RJT> matter.

you can turn the compression way way down (off?) in many graphics
manipulation programs... of course, you'll have a larger resultant file...
i notice that many pictures use way more memory than drive space, anyway...

)\/(ark