Image Size (Bigger is not better)

[drisley]

This has started to bug me more and more, and I don't know if I'm alone in this.... people are starting to post images on these forums at sizes that are too big for my tastes. As I mention in the subject, bigger is not necessarily better.

I have a 21" widescreen monitor running at 1680x1050, which is probably above average when it comes to most web surfers, and probably average for most of the photographers on here.

I find that the perfect size for viewing images on these forums is with an 800x800 px limit. Anything much larger, and I can't view the entire picture without scrolling up and down. I think some people feel you lose IQ when posting at a "web size" and want to post as large as possible, but this is not true at all. IMHO, images look much better at a reasonable size (between 600px to 800px max on either horz or vert.) than at larger sizes.

I would say 1000px in any direction would be max for posting an image embedded in a forum in my experience. I personally limit my images to 800px in either direction.

Just my 2c. I would love to hear other opinions.

[kab8715]

I agree! I find it much easier to appreciate a photo when I can look at it all at once!

[Andrushka]

i agree! i hate having to scroll down to view the rest of a photo... totally kills the visual impact in my mind... 800x800 is plenty and fits my laptop screen!

[drisley]

I'm glad I'm not the only one. :)

[Stocky]

I agree that there should be a limit of about 1000px or so. Fortunately it looks like the powers that be agree with me.
http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=179325
I think the rules in place are reasonable, and personally I would make the image smaller unless there is a level of detail I want to show that would be lost if I made it that 20% narrower that I would normally chose. I don't think that happens too often though, and at that point a link to the full resolution image would be easy enough anyway.

[drisley]

I even find 1024px a bit annoying (when the height is that much), since I still need to scroll up/down a bit on my 21" monitor. However, I'm glad that officially there is the limit

[sevillafox]

I rarely post that big. I prefer around 600-800px on the long side. But, I'm on a small monitor so it's mostly just for me that I go smaller.

[AndreaBFS]

I completely agree. My standard is 400 pixels wide for portrait and 600 pixels for landscape. I can't see the benefit in going over that unless you are asking for editing help, then I welcome the image being as large as possible.

[Anke]

Got to side with you too. 800px is perfect.

[S-S]

i prefer images to fit inside 800x600 (width by height) because my screen is only 800 high including browser toolbars & menus (laptop) and i dont like to scroll to try and see a photo. its 1200 wide but 800 is plenty to get the impact of a photo. maybe widescreen shots can be within 1000x600, but i dont always fullscreen my browser either, so 800 is better

[carpenter]

Depending on the photo you can lose impact and detail by having it sized smaller. I agree with no bigger than 800px on a vertical orientation however, I find that 1024 on a horizontal orientation is plenty acceptable. (and within the forum rules).

[drisley]

IMHO, you lose way more impact when the photo is so big it can't fit on most people's monitors.

If there is certain detail I want to convey, I will post a link to a larger image, but to me, a smaller, properly sharpened picture will have as much impact as a gigantic one, maybe more. In fact, I find most of my images look much better in a proper web size than at 10MP, or even a picture posted at 1200px vert or horz for example. Why? Because the image looks sharper, unwanted details such as noise aren't visible, and being able to take in the entire frame is the way a picture is meant to be viewed.