Wide range of developer fees

[sclark]

One thing that I've noticed over the years is the wide range of fees that developers charge for their services. So my question is, what are developers supposed to use as a basis when they are coming up with prices for their services? Has anyone come up with a standard pricing index for developer work? It seems to me that the client may be likely to find that one developer may charge $1000 for creating a database driven site, while another may charge $5000 for the same site. Yet another might only charge $500. So where is the standard? Will there ever be one?

[steelersfan88]

i doubt so, but am interested to hear about this. I believe if a standard is ever set, it will be the product of all of the amounts you provided, since its all about making gold ol' $$$ :)

[h4r01d]

its hard enough to get people to use standards in development, much less rates.

i think in order for some kind of 'standard' to be accepted and adhearded to, developers would need some sort of governing body, like IEEE or OSI does for standards in networking, hardware, etc

without some governing body all the kids at scriptlance are always going to bid $5 for any job.

personally, I hope there is never a standard. I want people to bid $5 for some job. If anyone pays someone $5 for a script that is worth well in excess of hundreds, well, you get what you pay for.

free market, keeps prices down. its up to business owners to invest in quality products and make intelligent descisions.

do you need some governing body controlling how long your certification lasts or telling you you cant do something becasue you havent paid them this year?

to answer your question a little more directly, I believe a developer should charge fees based on their experience, how long a job will take, what expertise are involved, if the developer has a niche and is an expert (or just a kid), costs and overhead, etc. if you are going to take a contract or job to develop something, you owe it to the client and yourself to develop a plan before you quote someone a price. this plan should involve something similar the microsofts MSF model; microsoft solutions framework. the MSF consists of 4 main parts, all devided up into more specific task;

-envision
-planning
-developing
-deploying

if a developer makes a good enough plan, the fees should be pretty clear once the MSF is complete.

[fredmv]

There will likely never be a standard simply because people have different requirements and as such it cannot be standardized. What it really comes down to is the amount of work and complexity of that work. For instance: a static, simple layout would without a doubt cost a lot less than a dynamic, database-driven, e-commerce oriented one. Moreover, the quality of the work should also be a key price factor. A developer using best practices deserves more than a developer in which isn't.

[Vladdy]

When I quote a job, I always tell prospective clients:
"Web design is like a paint job. It is not only about how good it looks the day after, but how long it lasts. If you do not need a guarantee that your site will be functional in a next browser release, you can certainly find someone who will make it at 20% of my quote. I'm not really concerned about losing your order, because chances are you will come back to me in a year with the request to make it right, so I will get my money, but you will pay twice..."

Most listen ... :D :D ... and those who do not are most probably a pain to work with anyway :D :D :D

[Jona]

Haha, Vladdy, that is awesome! :cool:

[sharkey]

Nice Vladdy im going to start using that:)

[buntine]

Its golden.

Im tight, i charge $70 per hour for my services; back-end database and application development.

I have never had a client ask twice. Infact, i constantly get new (and bigger) jobs from the same design companies.

Regards,
Andrew Buntine.

[davidbrent]

vladdy,

very entertaining piece. would you mind i fi used something similar, allong the lines of what you have already said.

i have spent many hours trying to find a way to convince prospective clients that design may be a key aspect, but life-span is a neccesity.

many regards,

David

[Vladdy]

I sure would not mind.
Educating clients is the toughest part in web design, IMHO.

[davidbrent]

i am very grateful vladdy.

[toicontien]

You should do some market research for your immediate area to discover what your competition is charging. Take a look at the sites they design and develop and price accordingly.

Markets with a smaller population can't sustain a web dev business that charges what a major firm in New York City or L.A. would charge. If you are an individual developer, take an inventory of your bills. Figure about how long it takes to build a site and charge enough to pay your bills and put some money in the bank account. After all, no business can lose money.

[crh3675]

Imagine being a one-man team. I work in an office where I do everything: graphics, html, css, javascript, php, asp, vbscript, xml xsl, mysql, postgresql, ms access, sql server, you name it. My question is, are there other developers ou there like me? I feel like I take on a boatload of responibility.

I really don't know what I'm worth anymore since I do so much. Not only that, how do I charge people with so much experience under my belt? --Craig

[Jona]

Originally posted by crh3675
Imagine being a one-man team. I work in an office where I do everything: graphics, html, css, javascript, php, asp, vbscript, xml xsl, mysql, postgresql, ms access, sql server, you name it. My question is, are there other developers ou there like me? I feel like I take on a boatload of responibility.

You're not the only one. ;) I don't do any ASP, Access, or VBScript coding, or any Microsoft stuff, but just about everything else (and if I don't do it now, I'll probably be doing it in the future). It's best to learn each language, one at a time, very, very well, before going on to something else. But you know, if you're only one person, your employee expenses are less, so that is an advantage; although if you get famous and start having too much work to do, hiring some other people to do it for you and paying them isn't a bad choice, as it may be better in the long-run.

[Booooze]

simple question... how much would you charge for a basic website, no database or scripts, just something customers can refer to as information. like prices, location, phone numbers etc.

???

o yeah, btw...
crh365- i like your website ya got there..
and Vladdy, thats a great motto...or "saying"
lol
i live by..>>
no matter how hard you try, know matter what you do, they are still going to blame you for it.

lol

[crh3675]

What we always tell clients is that the design is what is going to cost them the most. Our standard contract rate is $85/hr. So, if the client wants 2 custom layouts to choose from, and let's say they have 10 pages on content and 1 email form. Their price would be about $1850. That does not include meeting time, phone time and out-of-scope work.

[buntine]

Quite expensive, but definetely adequately priced. ;) I like it.

[Booooze]

holy crap!!...lol, for my lil job for a friend that he wants me to do soon, im runnin on somewhere like 6-10$/hour....lol, but i aint as skilled and dont have any speacial courses or training, im just all self taught, and i know web design reasonably well i guess.

[crh3675]

I think a lot of developers understimate their worth. Sure, any shmoe can use Dreamweaver or Frontpage to "whip out" a couple of HTML pages, but is the code valid? Is it efficient? Is it almost 100% accessible? Are the images optimized as much as they can be? Is the content scalable? Has the developer used the BEST practices in web design to produce a high quality document?

Web Developers are Professionals. We are a skilled trade. I have been doing web development for over 10 years and that experience is priceless. Our economy empowers "users" with the ability to create web pages using software such as Dreamweaver and Frontpage. So, we as developers have to justify our position everyday to these "users" on why they need to pay us to do the work.

RULE OF THUMB:
Don't underestimate your abilities. Get paid what you are worth. $10 per hour is what a food prep person gets paid in a restaurant in Washington D.C. Are you a food prep person? No, you're a professional in a very competitive market. Clients will pay to have the job done right. If they don't, you don't need them because chances are that they will be a pain to work with anyway. The best client is the client who is confident that they are getting the most for their dollar when they hire you. A developer that charges $10 per hour I would be very weary of.

It's people that charge minimal for their work that make it VERY difficult for me to get what I am worth in this job market. Granted, prices are relative to the area you live in, so your prices should reflect your area's economy. Our firm can charge $120 per hour for PHP and Database work because we are on the margin. The prices for html/programming and web development in Washington D.C. range from $70/hr to $200/hr

[crh3675]

P.S. I am self taught as well. I give no credit to college courses that I have taken. My real experience has been through trial and error.

[buntine]

chr3675:

Excellent post.. Feel free to generalise and/or elaborate it and i will make it sticky so future members can benifit.

Regards,
Andrew Buntine.

[sharkey]

Very true ive just completed an HNC (some of you wont know what this is) in Web Development and i have learned absolutly nothing apart from basic flash. I have learned all my skills from either this board or tutorial web sites.

I give no credit to them becuase they teach outdated work.

[Booooze]

well, im certanly not gonna charge 70$ an hour or so. im 15 years old...lol, and i havent done web design for about 2-3 months, so im a lil slow..but i remember mst of, but have problems with layout and design, which im currently working on trying to fix...thanks to some of the other members here:D

[vinoth]

depends upon their work and each one quotes his own money for their work.


i usually do for free,and if it is a big project i take some money.

[Daniel T]

I am very cheap. I've been working on a site for the past couple of months for my mom's business. Lot's of pages(30 or 40), lot's of images to work with(approx. 100-150). Sadly, when I started, I didn't know any server-side languages, so I had to put the same code on every page without the use of includes. My price? $100.
-Dan

PS: Here's the site: http://216.36.173.149/other/cd awards/

[Booooze]

nice

[crh3675]

What the heck is wrong with you people?? What are you trying to do to the web development industry?? You take your professionalism to such low levels. The problem here is high school students. You think you know it all and $100 is a lot of money. Well, reality check, it's not! Our firm bills $90 and $120 per hour for web development and we have solid reputable clients who pay on time and don't complain about the cost of service. Most of our projects range from $4,000 to $20,000. By taking a measly $100, not only are you selling yourself short, you are hurting the industry.

The way it works with homes, say that your neighbor has his house appraised at $200,000. He decides to sell for $100,000. What that does is it DROPS THE VALUE of YOUR HOUSE. So when you get yours appraised, it will only be appraised for $150,000. Why you ask??? Market comparables. The only way businesses establish prices is through what the market will bear. When you charge $10 per hour or $100 for a 40 page website, you are taking MY value as a professional down.

I have a family and a mortage to pay. It's the inexperieced and immature "web designers" that are keeping me from affording a better house and life for my family.

[merxais]

hi all, i am here also is for asking the price in the market, i think its not good to make the price low to get more customers.. but i am new, so i dont know why count in time? can someone explain me pls?

[Vladdy]

I think the problem with low prices stems from client ignorance. Unlike with most other products, when people order a web site designed, they usually do not know what to ask for. Most of the times, especially with small business owners, it's "Umm, everyone is on the web, we would like to be on the web as well". Even with marketing types of large companies all they care about is making the site look like their favourite brochure. They do not care about data organization, bandwidth costs, etc.
This is the reason any monkey with FrontPage or DreamWeaver thinks that they can design a web site.

Once the industry matures and regulations are enforced, the wannabes will be weeded out.

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by crh3675
The problem here is high school students. You think you know it all and $100 is a lot of money. Well, reality check, it's not!
$100 is a lot of money when you do not have a job, and just do web development as a part-time hobby. It definitely pays a hell of a lot more than a paper route or something of the likes. Sure, thousands of dollars would be nice, but adults aren't goin got pay kids big bucks to do anything. Also, what would we need thousands of dollars for anyway? We don't pay bills, pay for children, pay taxes(with the exception of sales tax) or anything.
-Dan

[crh3675]

adults aren't goin got pay kids big bucks to do anything


And it's good that they don't. Chances are greater that a "kid" is not qualified or experienced enough to create websites. Would you pay a "kid" that claimed he was an attorney to go to court for you? Probably not. So this leads us to regulations and standards. Lawyers have to pass the "Bar" exam to be even considered an attorney. What do web designers have? Nothing. Which allows novices and "newbies" the ability to overrun this industry with substandard web design at cheap rates. So when your "clients" come to a point where they want dynamic content and database driven functionality, they won't understand why the costs are so much higher. When the truth of the matter is that YOU put a false impression on them.

[toicontien]

<rant>I have to agree with crh3675. Web design is a very cannibalistic industry right now with professionals constantly getting under-cutted by novices. That's what keeps feeding the belief of "why should I pay a lot for web design when any kid can do it for peanuts," when in fact any kid can't and shouldn't.

I encourage the younger people here to learn. Just don't do anything professionally yet until you've learned the ropes - and learning Web standards are not THE ropes, but a part of them. And the general public is sadly misinformed about the Web, since it has to do with "that computer stuff" that intimidates people so much.</rant>

[Daniel T]

I do not design websites "professionally". I just happen to have an advantage over the web design companies because I am situated in a literal "money-hole". Out of the 1500 people in my town, there are two web developers. Myself, and another woman, who could probly make more out of it than me. Although, I don't mean to "gloat" or anything, but I would say I do a much better job of it. There are about 75 businesses in my town. 1 of them is a chain, so they alraedy have a website. The other 74 are "websiteless" and I am jumping on that opportunity. Even at $100 a site, I will be the richest kid in town in a matter of months. So really, it's not about us kids outdoing the adults, but rather, outsmarting them.
-Dan

[crh3675]

So really, it's not about us kids outdoing the adults, but rather, outsmarting them.


You think that charging $100 per site is outsmarting professional web developers??? Your are just plain dense ! If you have been following the thread, you would understand the real implications of what you are doing to the entire industry. So, you can take your "money-hole" and sell each of those businesses a sub-standard website, it will be their loss and your downfall in the long run when your sub-standard design becomes your reputation. When they want a real website and web application, they can contact the professionals.

[Daniel T]

If people are hiring kids to design a site for a couple bucks, doesn't that say something about the clients? Businesses are cheap these days. They're always looking to save a buck or two. If they aren't impressed with the outcome of the site, they will most likely look into hiring a professional because they are not satisfied with the turnout. However, if they do not do this, then it is obvious the kids ARE outsmarting the adults, by doing all they can, even if it's not worth it. Donald Trump didn't get rich by giving other people his business.
-Dan

[crh3675]

obvious the kids ARE outsmarting the adults


I can't wait until you enter the professional field so I can do the same thing to you

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by crh3675
I can't wait until you enter the professional field so I can do the same thing to you
I'm not planning on going into web design as a profession. For me, it will always be a hobby. I plan on going into forensics/law, maybe some kind of medical position. I'd prefer to do something other than web design for the rest of my life.
-Dan

[pyro]

This is a great thread.

I must say that I agree completely with crh3675 on this issue. This is one of the very few industries where a 15 year old can "compete" with a larger company. Unfortunatly, as we've seen in this thread, the 15 year old will tend to give rediculously low prices. Obviously, the better you know your stuff, the more you can charge, but $100 for a 30-40 page site is just wrong.

Those who are just getting into this industry should read Setting the price (http://www.9rules.com/whitespace/web_business/setting_the_price_part_ii.php) by Paul Scrivens. Include my comment (first one) as a part of the article.

[dr john]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
I'm not planning on going into web design as a profession. For me, it will always be a hobby. I plan on going into forensics/law, maybe some kind of medical position. I'd prefer to do something other than web design for the rest of my life.
-Dan

That's probably just as well. The web page you gave a link to takes for ever to load. The images measure 200x 150 on screen but have file sizes of 100Kb and more, instead of the 6 - 10K we'd expect. So anyone visiting the site will just go somewhere else as they get bored waiting for the page and images to download.

for example this page
http://216.36.173.149/other/cd%20awards/glass.html
is quoted at 360 seconds to download by NetMechanic on a 28.8 Kb modem (which equates to a 56K modem on a noisy line) or 184 seconds on a 56K modem under perfect conditions. Also the page has no content, just pictures. What do the items cost, what size are they, what does it cost to ship them?

Your choice of colours fails miserably on accessibility, as they are low contrast and hard to read where there is text. Never have pages with "content will go here" or "coming soon" it is very unprofessional - oh you did say you were not a professional, didn't you. And you say you've spent a couple of months working on this...

So I'd say at $100 you are ripping people off. If you think you can make some money locally from web design, I suggest you don't hold your breath waiting for the cheques to roll in.

Netmechanic is here http://www.netmechanic.com/cobrands/zd_dev/
(It can be fooled by framed sites so watch that if you use it)

[Jona]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
$100 is a lot of money when you do not have a job, and just do web development as a part-time hobby. It definitely pays a hell of a lot more than a paper route or something of the likes. Sure, thousands of dollars would be nice, but adults aren't goin got pay kids big bucks to do anything. Also, what would we need thousands of dollars for anyway? We don't pay bills, pay for children, pay taxes(with the exception of sales tax) or anything.

Remember how you always have to agree with me, Dan? OK, well, agree with me. :D

First, it is definitely not worth the effort to make someone an accessible site and then accept $100 as your payment fee. Never feel you charge too much (unless you're being extremely unreasonable). I used to think I had a decent price going - $120 per page - meh, I'm now at $80/hour for Web Development and Design. True, I'm nowhere nearly as good at it as pyro, or other forum members, and it may be a while before I am; yet, now is an excellent start, and my portfolio will only increase over time, as will my skills. Remember, "Dreams are the foundation of reality."

[Paul Jr]

I'm in complete agreement: this is one good thread.

If I can cut it, in the near future I hope to become a professional web developer, but there seems to be an ever-increasing number of kids my age doing this; I'm more worried about the ones who know what they're doing, rather than the ones who don't. I do agree about how under-charging can lead to clients going elsewhere or demanding lower-prices, but most people, such as Dan or myself, don't know how much to charge, or what their time/skill is worth; one developer may charge 500 bucks for something that another would charge 1000 for. I'd agree that that site, with 3-40 pages, is worth a great deal more than 100 bucks, but hell if I know how much more. What exactly constitues a "professional"? How do you define it

Originally posted by dr john
That's probably just as well. The web page you gave a link to takes for ever to load. The images measure 200x 150 on screen but have file sizes of 100Kb and more, instead of the 6 - 10K we'd expect. So anyone visiting the site will just go somewhere else as they get bored waiting for the page and images to download.

for example this page
http://216.36.173.149/other/cd%20awards/glass.html
is quoted at 360 seconds to download by NetMechanic on a 28.8 Kb modem (which equates to a 56K modem on a noisy line) or 184 seconds on a 56K modem under perfect conditions.
Edit: He's actually got broadband. :p
I am quite sure that once the site is finished, it will be properly hosted elsewhere -- if not... then... uhh...

Originally posted by dr john

Also the page has no content, just pictures. What do the items cost, what size are they, what does it cost to ship them?

Your choice of colours fails miserably on accessibility, as they are low contrast and hard to read where there is text. Never have pages with "content will go here" or "coming soon" it is very unprofessional - oh you did say you were not a professional, didn't you. And you say you've spent a couple of months working on this...
As Dan stated, the site isn't complete. If it was, there would be content. Do you publish an incomplete website, with zero to hardly any content?

Also, I'm on a fairly slow 56K (connected at 31.2Kbps), and the site loads just fine for me.

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by pyro
This is one of the very few industries where a 15 year old can "compete" with a larger company.
If you are referring to me, I am 13, not 15.Originally posted by pyro
$100 for a 30-40 page site is just wrong
Maybe in your mind, but I was the one who volunteered to do it for $100. I did not take it on as a job, but a way to get practise with web development.
Originally posted by dr john
That's probably just as well. The web page you gave a link to takes for ever to load. The images measure 200x 150 on screen but have file sizes of 100Kb and more, instead of the 6 - 10K we'd expect. So anyone visiting the site will just go somewhere else as they get bored waiting for the page and images to download.That site is still under construction, therefor I am using PNG's, so it will be easier to edit them quickly. When the site is done, I will convert them to GIF's.
Originally posted by dr john
for example this page
http://216.36.173.149/other/cd%20awards/glass.html
is quoted at 360 seconds to download by NetMechanic on a 28.8 Kb modem
Same reason as above.
Originally posted by dr john
Your choice of colours fails miserably on accessibility, as they are low contrast and hard to read where there is text. Never have pages with "content will go here" or "coming soon" it is very unprofessional - oh you did say you were not a professional, didn't you. And you say you've spent a couple of months working on this...
Maybe hard to read if you're color blind, but that's what the black and white stylesheet is for. As for the "some content will go here" and "coming soon", Paul answered that by saying that the site is not complete. As for the couple months, that has been off and on time. I haven't worked on it in the past month at least, so you could say one month. And in that one month, probly bout an hour a day max.
Originally posted by dr john
So I'd say at $100 you are ripping people off.
I beg to differ.
Originally posted by Jona
First, it is definitely not worth the effort to make someone an accessible site and then accept $100 as your payment fee.
Well, that's pretty much the only thing I don't agree with there. I would normally agree with it, but I took tis project on as an attempt to improve my skills, and do not want tons of money for it.
Originally posted by Paul Jr
Incase you didn't know, which I assume you did not, that site is hosted off Dan's computer, which is connected to the internet with a dial-up modem
Broadband actually. However, I have received a couple comments that my homepage (http://216.36.173.149/) loads failry quick, so I assume the main part of the lag time with the CD Awards page is the PNG's and the fact that it doesn't use includes, so it has to reload the content everytime.
Originally posted by Paul Jr
I am quite sure that once the site is finished, it will be properly hosted elsewhereYes. I already have a host lined up for this site when it's finished.
-Dan

[Jona]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
That site is still under construction, therefor I am using PNG's, so it will be easier to edit them quickly. When the site is done, I will convert them to GIF's.

Ever heard of PNG compression? ;) PNGs are all around better than any image type - it's a JPG and a GIF put together with half the file size, and better quality. It has more potential, but our friendly neighborhood browser (IE) often chooses to cause us to be held back by the growing potentials of CSS and other new (standards) technologies. But now I'm on an IE-rant. :D

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
Well, that's pretty much the only thing I don't agree with there. I would normally agree with it, but I took t[h]is project on as an attempt to improve my skills, and do not want tons of money for it.

Feast or famine; all or none. If you don't plan on having it as a job, don't get paid for it; if someone offers to give you money for something you volunteered to do, it's not wrong to accept the money, but don't pose yourself as a Web Developer. (Makes us look bad. :D) Just take it with a grain of salt and a bail of hay (you just heard it from the horse's mouth!). ;)

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by Jona

Feast or famine; all or none. If you don't plan on having it as a job, don't get paid for it; if someone offers to give you money for something you volunteered to do, it's not wrong to accept the money, but don't pose yourself as a Web Developer. (Makes us look bad. :D) Just take it with a grain of salt and a bail of hay (you just heard it from the horse's mouth!). ;)
I actually was doing it for $0 at the beginning, but then she offered me $100 for it, and $100 is still a fair bit of cash.
-Dan

[crh3675]

Thank you to the "professionals" for their input on this thread. I appreciate the quality feedback.

[Jona]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
I actually was doing it for $0 at the beginning, but then she offered me $100 for it, and $100 is still a fair bit of cash.

$100 is chicken feed, but that's relative -- and irrelevant. If that's the case, we have a completely different situation here which may have been avoided had you said so sooner. lol.

Also yes, Craig, you did an excellent job on your post! It was very helpful. So was pyro's link to Whitespace and his comment therein.

[Paul Jr]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
Broadband actually. However, I have received a couple comments that my homepage (http://216.36.173.149/) loads failry quick, so I assume the main part of the lag time with the CD Awards page is the PNG's and the fact that it doesn't use includes, so it has to reload the content everytime.
Yes. I already have a host lined up for this site when it's finished.
-Dan
Ah, pardon my poor assumption. :o

[merxais]

umm.. maybe Dan has his rights to take only $100.. but luckily not in my country :o :rolleyes:

[dr john]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
I actually was doing it for $0 at the beginning, but then she offered me $100 for it, and $100 is still a fair bit of cash.
-Dan

Okay, having read some more of your replies about your situation, perhaps we can step back a bit and say that as a first site perhaps this is an acceptable price, as an attention grabber / publicity / see I can do it example. But to consider charging the next client a similar price is very silly. Your credibility drops, as you end up working for $1-$2 an hour and that is ridiculous. I'd be very suspicious of someone who said they'd work for that sort of money. You should be charging a fee by the page, that way the next client can work out what they expect to pay. By the hour is very hard to check up on when someone says "oh it took five hours to do that and three hours for this" The client is payig for your mistakes as you learn how to do things. But a client can count the pages and check up on things.


Your images degrade incredibly if converted to GIF, and degrade a bit as jpg - I just lifted one off the site and played with it. The degredation is very obvious if you expand the images by a factor of two, which is a good way to check for things you might miss at first glance at actual size. But when I chose to Save As under a different name but still png, the file size dropped by a factor of three. And all I did was select optimised pallete. These images definately should not be 100Kb and are affecting the site download time adversely. Once cached locally, they give the false impression that the site is loading faster.

The default red (and the blue) are still poor choices for your standard colours.

It wasn't clear from the initial post that this wasn't the final online version, but the in progress version. Yes I post incomplete versions for a client to preview as well.

You are using div id="setimage" multiple times on a page. An id is meant to be unique on a page. You should be using div class="setimage" for multiple occurances of the same style.

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by dr john
Your images degrade incredibly if converted to GIF
Not if I use an "exact GIF". It lowers the image size dramatically, yet keeps 100% of the orignial quality.
Originally posted by dr john
You are using div id="setimage" multiple times on a page. An id is meant to be unique on a page. You should be using div class="setimage" for multiple occurances of the same style.
Yeah, when I started the site, I didn't know much about validility. I'll go through and change all the stuff after the site is finished.
-Dan

[dr john]

You can convert 8000+ colours (I only checked three of your images for a colour count) into 265 and have no loss of quality? Sounds like a good trick to me ;-)

[Daniel T]

Ok, I was wrong about the GIF, but you can convert it to a JPG and keep the filesize fairly small.

[dr john]

Originally posted by DanieLTomaS
Ok, I was wrong about the GIF, but you can convert it to a JPG and keep the filesize fairly small.

JPG is a lossy algorithm which throws away data. I have already converted a couple of your files to jpg and the distortion is noticable, although nowhere near as much as in the GIFs. But using the optimised colour pallete in PNG makes no difference to quality as far as I could see, but reduces the file size by a factor of three. Hence your pages will load three times faster, and given the time they take just now, this is a BIG saving.

Of course it is a bit of a balancing act as the jpg files I made came out at 9Kb compared to the PNG ones at 36KB, compared to your originals at 100KB, and the quality reduction isn't huge. So perhaps a really fast loading jpg of slightly lower quality would be worthwhile. The time to load with the jpg will be so much better that viewers might forgive the small loss in quality. Especially if you offer them a bigger version to view by clicking on the thumbnails.

But experiment and make your own judgement. As long as you get rid of the 100Kb images, it will be an improvement.

PS the 265 in the last post was of course meant to read 256, of course.

[Paul Jr]

Since this thread is about "professional" developer fees, I'd still like to know how you all define "professional." Do you have to possess knowledge of a certain amount of technologies? Is it the amount of experience you have? Or... ???

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by dr john
I have already converted a couple of your files to jpg and the distortion is noticable
Then you're using the wrong program ;)

[dr john]

Maybe. :D


But have a look at this pair and then see what you get when you save the original as a jpg. I've reduced the png to one third its original file size incidentally. Zoom in on my versions and look closely and critically at what you see. (But the jpg will load faster as we both agree.)

[crh3675]

Can we get back to the topic of the forum? When did this turn into a "graphics forum"? Please stay on track people.

[Daniel T]

Originally posted by dr john
But have a look at this pair and then see what you get when you save the original as a jpg.
I get an exact duplicate of the PNG, 2/7's the size.

http://216.36.173.149/other/wut_you_tokin_bout_willis.zip (filesize is a small bit large)

-Dan

[dr john]

Dan - very good.

Craig - Threads do wander.

[Jona]

Originally posted by dr john
Craig - Threads do wander.

They also tend to get locked after they're off-topic for too long. ;) I would actually suggest you two discuss this in the Graphics forum. I don't know how many people would search this forum for a question they may have about PNGs vs. GIFs, y'know. ;)