But you would go in the hole once you paid for either the wedding or the fake passport/drivers license.

Sony & Nikon & Canon put out 600mm prime lenses in the $13,000 range. I can get a Fujifilm or Tamron or Sigma 150-600 mm lens for $2000 or less. I would love to see the same distant object taken at 600mm with one of the primes and one of the lesser telephotos at differing levels of cropping to see the difference in detail/sharpness. Any website show this or does someone here have such photos? I am not expecting a dramatic difference as I understand you pay a high premium for incremental improvements generally. I am not planning on any $13K purchase (unless I win Mega Millions lottery), but just curious.

I agree that viewing images on the site doesn't require a large file size. But as I clarified, people download pictures from this site to print in various ways. So best resolution for printing is also an issue.

As I have said, I am hearing that I should not have any concern if I can use file compression of 95-99% and get under the 12mb limit.

Marinetraffic.com specifies all photos must comply with a 12mb file size limit. If I try to upload a larger file, it gets rejected. My Fujifilm X-T4 routinely gives me files larger than this. I know I can reduce the file size by camera setting but I definitely do not want to do this. I reduce file size copies for uploading by jpeg compression, but I keep my originals in original file sizes.

Thanks to all. I am satisfied that my questions and concerns have been answered.

Agreed. I should have been clearer in that regard. I interpret your comment as saying that if 97% compression gives me a 13mb file and 95% compression gives me a 9 mb file, I will lose very little IQ. The difference in file size will not translate into much IQ difference as long as my compression values are high (in the 90s for example).

That much I do understand. A 17mb jpeg may be excellent or terrible in IQ. I never implied I was trying to improve IQ by compression. I am wanting to come as close as possible to retaining the original IQ in a smaller, compressed file size.

Let me clarify and ask elementary questions.

First, my only concern is not with picture viewing. This website allows users to download my pictures. Some users want to print the pictures in brochures or newsletters or reports or even a newspaper article. Some users may just want to print for their personal uses. I am OK with this. I retain copyright, but I always give requestors free permission to use my photos. Sometimes, they even ask if I have higher resolution images than on the website. So printing is an issue over and above pixels/screens.

Then there is the issue of resizing vrs compression. Aren't they separable at times? Compression is lossy I know, but it is algorithm based, correct? Some resizing can be actual pixel reduction correct? Or am I not understanding?

Simple sounding question. I start with a jpeg file that is about 17mb in size. I use my program at 97% compression to get it down to 9 mb. 98% puts it over the upload size restriction. Or, I use one of the programs suggested to compress it to 11mb. Someone wants to download this picture and print it in a glossy brochure. Will it make any difference if the file has been compressed to 9 mb versus the larger 11 mb in terms of printable quality? What if the file difference is 7mb vrs 11mb? Or what if the download is 7 mb but they want my original 17 mb file? That is the crux of what I need to know.

[I will look at your link Dirt Farmer. I haven't yet...]

Thanks for all the replies. I will look into AMS & Irfanview. They sound promising if they merely alter the compression ratio rather than actually reducing the picture size. Lightroom may be overkill for my needs, but it is good to know about.

I want to compress my jpegs to 11mb in size. There is an online site that supposedly does this but it requires uploading and then downloading my jpegs. I do not want to do this. Anyone use a computer software program - free or purchased - that allows compression to a specific file size rather than by percentage or pixel dimensions? I am currently compressing by percentage but the resulting file sizes are unpredictable. I submit pictures to a web site that requires pictures be 12mb or less. When I use 98% on one 15mb picture, I might get a 10 mb file but on the next picture of 15mb it might compress to 7 mb.

My thinking, which may be faulty!, is that I would get best results with least compression required if I can specify a 11mb file size and let the program do the calculations on compression rates.

Thoughts and suggestions appreciated.

As I mentioned earlier, the simplest solution for me seems to be to switch to program mode rather than auto as that seems to stop the autofocus hunting.

Are you saying you have a Tamron 18-400mm on a Fuji camera with Fringer adapter? Or are you saying you merely have a Tamron 18-400mm on a Nikon or Canon body? Huge difference.

I discovered the problem seems to go away when I switch from auto to program mode.

Exactly the kind of answer I was needing. Thanks

Thanks Andy.

I have tried to figure out how to change autofocus from continuous to something else and can't figure it out on the S10. Again wondering if the issue is with my S10 & settings or with the way the Fringer operates?