A little better on the sizes. It's not just physical geometry of the image that's a factor, but also (and sometimes more so) the density of the image. A "quality" of "75%" is quite sufficient for Web-based stuff. The first newly resized image took 1½ minutes to arrive, and it filled the pipe so full that no other traffic can use it. The second one was a bit better at 35 seconds, and the third was somewhere between.
I don't know exactly what information is in the images you put up, but running them through the "convert" program (included with ImageMagick, from from
http://www.imagemagick.org/) in the one case, with no other options, reduced the size 60%. Actually, the same occurs with the other two, but they're still needlessly large, so I hit them with the "-resize 67%" parameter.
Here's a partial directory listing, showing the file sizes in bytes, date, and name:
<font face="fixed"> 364853 May 19 01:11 12911.jpg
96918 May 19 09:04 12911.jpg.67.jpg
178679 May 19 01:13 12912.jpg
106229 May 19 09:04 12912.jpg.jpg
422427 May 19 08:30 12913.jpg
111232 May 19 09:11 12913.jpg.67.jpg</font>
I'll attach the smallest. It's not too small is it?
Glen