Frustrated: Limited Space, Many Graphics

My sincere thanks to all the folks who have answered my preceding two
questions (.wmf files and Saving Work for Future). This list has been, as
usual, very helpful. I think I have a few ideas about how to approach some
of these problems now. Having said that, I have another question, and this
time it's dead-on graphics related (my apologies for my last post not being
completely on-target for this list). 

I have to create sites for clients at work, but have only a limited amount
of pages to do it in. We draw up a contract with the client, based on
number of pages, approximate amount of graphics, how often client wants
updates, etc. This is not how I'd do it, but I'm not the boss.

This site in question is limited to six pages, including the home page. The
site is finished - not up yet, but will soon be. The site is for a lady
selling 'curio cabinet' knick-knacks, watches/jewelry, and the like. I've
arranged here pages into "Animals," "Perfume Bottles," "Jewelry," etc.
However, she wanted MANY many graphics from her catalog scanned in, and
consequently, there are many graphics filling up each page. 

I've compressed these as much as I think I can (72 pixels, gif at 6 bits,
most are around 150 pixels width max), and then thumbnailed them. What
concerns me is that Frontpage reports loading time is up to 1339 seconds on
the larger pages, and 330 seconds on the smaller pages (the main page is no
problem). They load up just fine on our LAN (no surprise), but I'm
terrified what will happen when we put it on the server.

There are three ways I know of to approach this issue:
1. Have her remove more images (not likely; she wants as much as she can
get for what she's paying, I'm sure)
2. Shrink the images even more (not a good idea, since they are at a very
good display size currently - any smaller would wipe out detail)
3. Suggest she pay more to have her pages broken down, resulting in less
images on pages (the best solution, but I don't think she can afford this)
4. Create low-res graphics that, when the viewer clicking on this low-res
thumbnail, is presented with a higher quality image for closer examination.

I'm tempted to try the fourth choice, but won't this look bad? It would not
appeal to me if I were browsing the site for reasons of possible purchase.
Obviously, the client would like to make some money from the site. 

She's already getting a really good deal from us, because upon her original
discussion with my boss, they'd agreed on far fewer images than are
actually there. Through a combination of lack of communication between all
parties, the client ended up giving me a ton of images to add to her pages.
We decided to let it slide, since the Graphics department had already gone
to the work of scanning them in, removing backgrounds, etc.

Ugh. So what's the trade-off? You see my dilemma. Any suggestions are
appreciated. I, personally, don't like the way this is being done - my boss
is less concerned by it but also realizes the possible problems here. But
as an artist, I'm not happy with the pages and the way they are set up.
I've done my best, so where do I go from here? We haven't expressed our
feelings to the client, but my boss and I have decided to talk about it
amongst ourselves come Monday for possible solutions amongst ourselves.
What to do, what to do? Neither of us know.

So I guess there are two issues of concern for me. 
A. How can I best attack the problem of so many graphics on a page when
confined to a set number of pages? I have to make my boss happy, but would
also like to make /myself/ happy.
B. How do you, as designers and artists, handle yourself when you feel that
while you'd done your best with the resulting project, you could have done
better if only... 

Feeling frustrated in Texas,
Eve

HWG: hwg-graphics mailing list archives, maintained by Webmasters @ IWA