Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Read More.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries
Thread started 28 Aug 2008 (Thursday) 18:58
Prev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

Image Size (Bigger is not better)

 
drisley
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,858 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Aug 28, 2008 18:58 |  #1

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.


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)
kab8715
Senior Member
kab8715's Avatar
321 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Aug 28, 2008 19:29 |  #2

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


Kim ;)

LOG IN TO REPLY
Andrushka
"all warm and fuzzy"
Andrushka's Avatar
3,735 posts
Joined Oct 2007
OC, CA
Aug 28, 2008 19:40 |  #3

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!


http://www.paradigmpho​tographyoc.comexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,858 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Aug 28, 2008 20:44 |  #4

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


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
Stocky
Senior Member
Stocky's Avatar
722 posts
Joined Feb 2008
Boston, MA
Aug 29, 2008 10:21 |  #5

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/showthre​ad.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.


Always happy to hear some critique
gear list

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,858 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Aug 29, 2008 16:04 |  #6

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


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sevillafox
I'm good with pathetic! Really, I am.
sevillafox's Avatar
25,190 posts
Joined Oct 2007
Southwest Wisconsin
Aug 29, 2008 18:32 |  #7

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.


Tiffany
hopeless smooshoholic......I smoosh!

LOG IN TO REPLY
AndreaBFS
Goldmember
1,345 posts
Joined Dec 2007
Aug 30, 2008 01:14 |  #8

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.




LOG IN TO REPLY
Anke
"that rump shot is just adorable"
UK SE Photographer of the Year 2009
Anke's Avatar
30,454 posts
Joined Oct 2006
Royal Tunbridge Wells, UK
Aug 30, 2008 01:18 |  #9

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


Anke
1D Mark IV | 16-35L f/2.8 II | 24-70L f/2.8 II | 70-200L f/2.8 II | 50 f/1.4 | 600EX-RT and ST-E3-RT
Join the Official POTN UK South-East Thread | Follow me on Twitterexternal link | Tunbridge Wellsexternal link | Flickrexternal link

LOG IN TO REPLY
S-S
frustrating simple something
S-S's Avatar
8,751 posts
Joined Aug 2006
Aug 30, 2008 02:15 |  #10

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




LOG IN TO REPLY
carpenter
Goldmember
Joined Jul 2006
Green Bay, WI
Aug 31, 2008 22:40 |  #11

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).


5D Mk IV | 24-105L | 85 1.8 | 70-200L 2.8 IS MkII | 100-400L MkII

LOG IN TO REPLY
drisley
THREAD ­ STARTER
"What a Tool I am"
drisley's Avatar
8,858 posts
Joined Nov 2002
Sep 01, 2008 18:15 |  #12

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.


1D Mark III - 5D Mark IV - 24-70/2.8L - 70-200/2.8L Mark II - Samyang 14/2.8

LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as registered member)

1,187 views & 0 likes for this thread
Image Size (Bigger is not better)
FORUMS Post Processing, Marketing & Presenting Photos Presentation & Building Galleries


Not a member yet? Click here to register to the forums.
Registered members get all the features: search, following threads, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, settings, view hosted photos, own reviews and more...


AAA

Send feedback to staff    •   Jump to forum...    •   Rules    •   Index    •   New posts    •   RTAT    •   'Best of'    •   Gallery    •   Gear    •   Reviews    •   Polls

COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies. Privacy policy and cookie usage info.

POWERED BY AMASS 1.4version 1.4
made in Finland
by Pekka Saarinen
for photography-on-the.net
Spent 0.00255 for 4 database queries.
PAGE COMPLETED IN 0.03s
Latest registered member is cristieng
863 guests, 441 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 6106, that happened on Jun 09, 2016