TOPIC: How do you use HIP ?

Looks good.

Ditto!!

I think I can answer for Dom on this one.
My reports are often around 3MB but how large would they be with over 100 photos at a higher resolution.
The reports would take forever to load and actually Cameron that may be why you need zoom.
High resolution is not needed if you can zoom.(optical zoom)

I however do agree that inserting illustrations sucks in the reports because of need for better resolution or larger image size.

Dom may be working on a different image format but I have no idea exactly if photo size options are included.

I don't really think this is an issue about zoom. For example, here is the closeup photo of the sub panel I posted earlier and the corresponding photo after HIP reduces it.  The difference is huge. The initial photo is very clear and zoom doesn't come into play at all.  Do photos which start at a higher resolution than my 5 megapixels end up looking sharper in you guy's reports?  If they did, then I would agree right away that I should go get the 10 megapixel camera.  Right now, I'm assuming HIP reduces everyones photos the same, but maybe HIP reduces it based on a percentage of the original and not a pixel setting.

That's why I was asking about how much "resolution-per-photo" would you gain if the end size of the PDF were 1-2 Mb larger.  I don't really know how much a photo increases in size when you double the resolution and then how much larger the PDF report would be. Perhaps I should take all the photos out of a report and see what the size is.

My reports are often around 3MB but how large would they be with over 100 photos at a higher resolution.

This is why a few options would be great.  A report with only 20-30 photos could use the highest resolution, but your reports with 100+ photos would choose the lowest.  The lowest setting could be the current setting HIP uses.

That shows why you need zoom and just to mention this but I am on my phone and the second picture loaded in one second while the first took almost 20 seconds
Imagine trying to download the report
Compare the size of that pic to your report size as it is almost as big as an average whole report

Wow Bob, I must not be communicating this very well at all.    I agree with you that the size of the photos should never be kept anywhere close to the same as an original, that would be way too big to make a report out of. 

I'm actually proposing a second option where the resolution of all the report photos only be raised a small amount so that it only increases the overall report size by 1 or 2 Mb.  And then you could have a third option which would raise the resolution by a little more.  In the end you would have the possibility of three different sized reports to choose from.

For example, an average report with 60 photos could have three photo size options:

1. Photos at lowest resolution, end report size = 2.5Mb    (this would be the current setting)
2. Photos at medium resolution, end report size = 4.0Mb
3. Photos at highest resolution, end report size = 5.5Mb

I have no idea if this would make a big difference in the picture quality within the report.  That's why I'm just suggesting it and waiting to here from Dom how it would affect the photo quality.

If you were taking the photo I took of the sub panel, why would you use the zoom on your camera if you are standing 8 inches away from it?

OK ,maybe we are operating without knowing what the resolution size limit is on the PDF's we generate.
I actually am not sure how to find out since they are not right click able for that info.
How did you arrive at that 39 KB limit?

If you doubled it to say around 80 KB that is still small but would double the file size pretty much since most of the PDF file size is from the pictures I would imagine.