why does everyone post such large images?

[pellicle]

surely something smaller (say 500x400) would be more user friendly (not everyone has 1700pixel wide screens you know.

Its not hard, even with flickr you can do it.

Step 1: select the image you want as sample and clickthe "insert image" tool above and paste in your image.

Step 2: then high-light that text in the edit window and click on the link tool above
to insert the URL (you know, the http:// bit) to a higher res image



or the (for example flickr, but it could be pbase) page which it refers to



its also way more net friendly and makes the pages way easier to load and read.

Thanks

 

[iiiNelson]

I don't think everyone posts large images. I personally use the LR2 default "email export" setting for website. It compresses some images quite a bit but I can still get the point across generally.

 

[pellicle]

I don't think everyone posts large images. I personally use the LR2 default "email export" setting for website.

your right, I should have put "so many"

It compresses some images quite a bit but I can still get the point across generally.

but its the pixels not the bytes which are the problem (unless you're meaning reduces rather than compresses).

Even when I run my browser full screen 1024x768 isn't enough to see the images without left right scrolling and pages load so slow that its like being on dial up again (despite having a 2Mbit ADSL connection).

 

[Brian Mosley]

I used to post 720 x 540 max resolution images, but then I realised that anything I posted online was open to being stolen anyhow... and 1024x768 seems to give a much better impression of the original image.

I'm open to going smaller though, if people generally have a problem with the larger size.

Kind Regards

Brian

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

Hi,

I'm currently posting in max 850 px, a dimension that I consider a minimum if you want to put through some of the qualities of pictures.
I personally hate to use my magnifying glass to see the pictures not much bigger than a stamp.

C U,
Rafael

 

[kweide]

I decided to post 1000 x something in size. But after following your writings and after bad experience with picture thefts, i believe its better to post even nothing !

640 x 480 is very small, assuming that normal visitors dont use 15" any more. So at least 17" with a resolution of min. 1280 x 1024 is in use, i think. Publishing in a size 800 x something is a very good compromise and even 1000 x something should work on any display without any problems.

Am i wrong ???

 

[pellicle]

Hi

I decided to post 1000 x something in size. But after following your writings

I'm not sure what you mean by that ...

Am i wrong ???

I don't think anyone is "wrong" ... I used to work in an area where we determined corporate "look and feel" for a rather large website. There were many arguments on each side of the table so I guess that I am thinking from that perspective. I guess (without thinking) I was as much asking for what people here think and why they think it.

Often in public participation it comes out that someone who thinks "I speak for everyone" discover (when voting analysis is published) they speak for themselves and the majority has different opinions.

if my question was poorly structured and gave another impression I hope I've clarified my stance.

 

[Jorgen Udvang]

I find between 800 and 900px longest side, and properly sharpened, gives a good view to most details in the photos. That will also fit with most current monitors.

 

[petermcwerner]

I find between 800 and 900px longest side, and properly sharpened, gives a good view to most details in the photos. That will also fit with most current monitors.

I think vertical side should be 800px max and horizontal 900px max. Pictures larger than that cannot be seen completely on a forum like this even with a 1280x1024 screen. I have reduced to the above sizes when realizing I could not see my own pictures well when traveling.

Even when I run my browser full screen 1024x768 isn't enough to see the images without left right scrolling and pages load so slow that its like being on dial up again (despite having a 2Mbit ADSL connection).

I think the majority of people interested in photography would have a 1280*1024 screen at least. Am I wrong?

As for the 2Mbit ADSL connection, you should test the real speed you get from your supplier, it seems much lower than what you are paying for if you have the problems you are describing.

 

[TRSmith]

Jack has a set of actions for exporting images from photoshop for online use that work really well. There are several options for output size from the pre-written actions: 750w x 600h; 900w x 750h; 1200w x 900h; and no-size. Using Jack's actions, I find it really easy and fast to make a .jpg for posting here. Plus, for a very modest donation, it's one way to support the forum.

I almost always use the 750w x 600h setting and find it works out to be a decent compromise between screen real estate and doing justice to an image. Just as a sample, a random image sized with Jack's action to 750w x 600h:

 

[petermcwerner]

Jack has a set of actions for exporting images from photoshop for online use

Not everyone is using Photoshop; I use Raw Therapee, Gimp and Silkypix for instance.

 

[TRSmith]

Not everyone is using Photoshop; I use Raw Therapee, Gimp and Silkypix for instance.

Yes, I understand that. I mentioned the actions for those that do use PS, but also as a set of image dimensions that come directly from our forum hosts and could thus be considered "sanctioned" by same. Nevertheless, I've never seen any hard and fast rules about pixel dimensions from them, just another example of their equanimity.

On a personal note, I have a high res monitor and enough screen real estate to handle most images posted here. But I don't use my browser set to full screen display and so larger images do tend to require side scrolling.

 

[Terry]

Some images just don't show well at a small size. I agree on not wanting to have to scroll but I post them. If I use the paperclip I don't go over 900 pixels or the software makes changes and sharpens. If I want to go larger, I load in the gallery and then link to them.

 

[f6cvalkyrie]

I think we have to differentiate between two possible causes of trouble here :

the first one is monitor size. If the image posted is bigger than the viewer's (mainly vertical) monitor size, than the viewer has to scroll. Annoying !
So I agree that the vertical size should be limited to something like 850 or max 900 px.

Second is the download speed. Bigger pics need more kB or even MB.
But here, the poster is not in control, because he does not know the viewer's ISP. But the poster is responsible for choosing a reliable pic host. Even at the speed of Internet, pics coming from very far away (like Butterdadda's, for me who is living in Western Europe) take longer to show on the screen. So, in that field, I would like to encourage everybody to limit the file size to something less than 400 kB.

In another forum where I post regularly, the limits are 900 px and 400 kB, so that's how I resize my pics.

C U,
Rafael

 

[monza]

I generally post at 1024 horizontal, and photoshop jpg quality = 6...the file size is not all that big, and it's large enough to actually see. BTW, I use a 13" MacBook (1280x800) and a 20" iMac.

 

[pellicle]

I think the majority of people interested in photography would have a 1280*1024 screen at least. Am I wrong?

well perhaps the majority of people with new PC's (both Mac and other Intel machines) who are interested in photography.

I happen to prefer a laptop for a number of reasons (like my desktop PC is in Australia and I'm in Finland) but even there I still don't like reading lines that go on and on and on. Columns were a publication standard for ease of reading.

At the place I worked before we standardised on everything fitting into a 1024 x 768 screen, so to keep the navigation and text ok on this site I think that translates to a 800 width.

so lets call that my vote (for what that's worth)