that's easy... he original image on the link you sent is actually over 70k
in size. So the 40k you were getting making it smaller makes perfect sense.
I got it down to about 40k myslef.

hth,

Michael

> ----------
> 
> 
> I have stumbled onto a strange effect when trying to optimize a JPEG
> (see at http://www.michaeldunnguitars.com/pics/patenottehp4.jpg).
> According to Ulead SmartSaver, this image is 446 x 925 with a
> resolution of 200 x 200 pixels. The file size though is *only* 42,4k!
> Now, when trying to optimize this picture (sampling it down to
> 250 x 518 pixels at a resolution of 96 x 96 pixels/progressive JPEG
>  (as, one should think, appropriate for the web) the file size now is
> 40,7k, although I really tried my best to optimize the image!
> 
> My question: How can this be? I experienced a similar effect a few
> days ago with a different graphic!
> 

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