[Petographer]

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.

[Banded Drake]

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 ..

[Toad]

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.

[slejhamer]

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 ...

[slejhamer]

Hey, that's my 1300th post!


Uh, oops. :/

[StudioJ]

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.

[shuttertalk]

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.

[Petographer]

I thought 800x600 would be fine also. Like Toad, I post @ 640x480.

[Schellamo]

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.

[Petographer]

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.

[Irma]

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...

[StudioJ]

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?

[Kombisaurus]

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.