Image posting size recommendation
Posts: 3,620
Threads: 235
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
I would like to recommend that the image posting size be kept to 800x600 pixels and no larger. I think this size is plenty for viewing images and if people would like to share full resolution images then a link could be made available. It is just a pain in the butt having to scroll side to side not just to see the image but to read the posts.
Sit, stay, ok, hold it! Awww, no drooling! :O
My flickr images
Posts: 1,184
Threads: 174
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation:
0
i agree i hate too look at a pic and have to scroll side by side. I always seem to miss something on the picture that way ..
Canon 20d and a few cheap lenses ..
It is our job as photographers to show people what they saw but didnt realize they saw it ......
Posts: 5,739
Threads: 264
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
2
I agree as well - I typically limit my photos to 640 x 480 so that people using standard VGA resoltuion do not have to scroll.
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 125
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
I voted Yes, but then I thought - what about panoramas? If we arbitrarily limit each side, isn't that too restrictive for some? Just wondering ...
_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Posts: 1,716
Threads: 125
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Hey, that's my 1300th post!
Uh, oops. :/
_______________________________________
Everybody got to elevate from the norm!
Posts: 1,199
Threads: 78
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
I think 800 x 600 is fine. I had thought about panoramas too Mitch but you can always link to a panoramic image that is bigger than those dimensions.
Posts: 9,731
Threads: 1,965
Joined: May 2004
Reputation:
6
Good on you Pet-o, I definitely agree.
I think panoramas can the be exception, as they aren't usually many posted anyway (relative to normal shots).
Just for comparison, here are some sizes:
800 x 600
640 x 480
480 x 360
I think 800 x 600 works well if you want to show off detail in a shot...
For series of photos and snapshots, the lower res ones are defintely sufficient.
Posts: 3,620
Threads: 235
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
I thought 800x600 would be fine also. Like Toad, I post @ 640x480.
Sit, stay, ok, hold it! Awww, no drooling! :O
My flickr images
Posts: 1,097
Threads: 90
Joined: Jul 2005
Reputation:
0
I must have a small monitor I had to scroll a wincy bit for the 800x600
I don't mind though, as long as I can fit the whole photo on my screen at once.
Canon 350D with Speedlight 580EX flash
EFS 18-55 f/3.5-5.6 II, EF 90-300mm f/4.5-5.6 USM, EF 50mm f/1.8
http://www.inspired-images.com.au
Posts: 3,620
Threads: 235
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Schellamo Wrote:I must have a small monitor I had to scroll a wincy bit for the 800x600
I don't mind though, as long as I can fit the whole photo on my screen at once.
Remember the key word here "max". You can post smaller if you wish. My recommendations cxall for no larger than 800x600 pixels maximum.
Sit, stay, ok, hold it! Awww, no drooling! :O
My flickr images
Posts: 5,148
Threads: 479
Joined: Oct 2004
Reputation:
1
I think I have the same monitor as Schell because I have to scroll to see the picture but I can see it complete, which is very nice...
I agree with posting picture with 800px as the widest size...
A work of art which did not begin in emotion is not art.
Paul Cezanne
Posts: 1,199
Threads: 78
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
0
Web design for an 800 x 600 based site dictates that you have 776 x 450something to play with based on IE's standard menu and scrollbars. If you run 1024 x 768 it doesn't matter your monitor size 800 x 600 will still make you scroll because of the members details on the left of your image on this site. Maybe one of those other forum software packages has a different layout to make it just fit?
Posts: 1,504
Threads: 182
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
0
I think the dimensions depend not just on the physical screen resolution (which should be the main factor), but also the aspect ratio and nature of the shot.
I generally choose 720x480 as the maximum size for shots with a landscape orientation to ensure they fit on-screen with all the associated surrounding website and desktop "stuff".. But I often use 400x600 (or sometimes 440x660) for shots with a portrait orientation, and maybe 480x480 (or 520x520) for square shots. I choose these dimensions because they give a similar area and therefore impact to the 720x480 size, and they will still fit on a 1024x768 screen comfortably and on a 800x600 screen uncomfortably (especially the few that are 440x660 - they are very uncomfortable).
The only exception I can think of are things like composite panoramas which have such extreme aspect ratios that they often really need to be wide to give any impact at all, and sometimes scrolling across these isn't too bad because it is like turning your head to see around a real panorama. I'd suggest making an exception for such photos, because basically otherwise they might not be worth posting them at all.
But certainly for 98% of the photos posted here, I think 800 and 600 are good maximum dimensions.
Adrian Broughton
My Website: www.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
My Blog: blog.BroughtonPhoto.com.au
You can also visit me on Facebook!
"Everything should be made as simple as possible, but no simpler." - Einstein.
Possibly Related Threads…
Thread / Author
Replies
Views
Last Post
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)
|