For what it's worth the 500KB limit is fine, this file in 81.5 KBs 750px wide JPG format
for web use builders seldom use files even this big. A full screen slide show file will be 100-120 KBs they look OK. I agree with those that go the Filkr way.
This one is 1.35 Meg 1900px wide
You be the judge. ad
I definitely prefer the larger one. The difference may be subtle, but if you look at the eye in both photos( where I usually "check for quality") you can see the second photo has more clarity and colour
My 2c, I agree with Nathan - the bokeh in the larger one is smoother too. Or is that like saying the smooth background is smoother,
. Oh, you know what I mean 
edited to add: Stunning shot by the way David!!
West Coast Tasmania
The eye sure has more detail, some of that could be due to the 1900px too, that and the smoother bokeh is due to the higher number of colours in the less compressed file. It's like all things there are always trade offs. Thanks Nathan and Annie.
Lovely photo, David!
Interesting, to my eyes, the first photo has more more detail than the second one, especially in the blue feathers on the head?
Don't forget the first photo is slightly smaller, leading to apparent higher quality.
I think if I am to get photos smaller than 500 with my camera I am going to have to use an editing software to downsize it. I can't seem to make any of my images on my Fugi Finepix S go smaller than about 1000... Till I work it out I won't be able to post any of my photos unless I use a site such as photobucket or flickr...
I see you posted your WB Magpie - so maybe you figured out a way to resize?
You may have got some image editing software with your Fuji camera you can use to resize pics?
What do you mean by "I agree with those that go the Flickr way"?
Those who want to use Flickr...what else could I mean?
I understand you mean you agree with those who want to use Flickr - but what do you mean by "the Flickr way"? What is it about using Flickr that you agree with?
It seems many here post their photos on Flickr so it is convenient for them to link to Flickr.
Personally I do not use Flickr so I guess that could mean I do not agree with the use of Flickr.
I do not understand what your point is?
Ok, I take it you mean that Flickr imposes a 500kb limit, but that despite this, hosting photos on Flickr to re-post here still results in photo quality you're happy with.
I presume Flickr doesn't downsize large images though? Because the positioning of your text in your two comparison images suggests you did the downsize, not Flickr.
Regarding the responses above, I agree that larger images show better quality in the eye region - at least that's what I've seen in my photos. However when I share with others (posting to Facebook), I usually do 1200px max, even though I know the final quality is nowhere near as good as it could be (ie. when I know what the full size image looks like).
How do your resize images withcout cropping them?
If you use windows, it comes with the program 'paint' in which you can use the resize button towards the top left. Use maintain aspect ratio.
Ryu
Canberra
Aiming for DSLR-quality shots with a bridge camera
Thanks :)
Amazing photo dude.