G&N website image size

RETHOUGHT THIS IN A POST BELOW

---------------
I'm asking this here because I want the G&N perspective that usually will post things in portrait instead of landscape and for other G&N views.

Please chose the size you think the website should display images....

I like 800x800 but a lot of people won't see the full image in portrait.

Not a single poll vote?

Not sure I completely understand the question. Plus it really depends on what the majority of people visiting your website have as their screen resolution. Any web stats program will easily show this broken down by percentage of visitors..

For web gallery work I stick with landscape, I just looked and mine are 960 wide x 520 high. It really depends on your website design. Yes, it only works with landscape images but that's the format I have locked myself into.

For proofs I use a program that will automatically thumb the image and when clients click on the image it will open in large size on the screen. I keep them to about 1000 pixels on the longest side so that even on smaller screens (1280x1024) a portrait oriented image can be seen with minimal scrolling.

Hope this helps.

I like photos as large as they can be and not have too much scrolling. For any kind of site, not just G&N. If they are too small I assume there are flaws that are being attempted to hide by keeping the images small. I mean just about anything looks good as a thumbnail. But if you have what it takes to show them full screen them by all means show them.

I am trying to hand build my site and it will have full screen images in the gallery.

i like large photos to view... not too big fullscreen maybe

NEW THOUGHTS ON OLD QUESTION!

Ok, I'm rethinking this because the bug in my website software was finally resolved this week, and now I'm rebuilding my webiste I've had down for 2 YEARS!

A lot of people on here said go for the big images, but when I look at photographer's portfolio websites most seem to be small ~ 300-400 pixesl in height. I have standardized on 800x800 (800x533 or 533x800 or 800 x 800) crop with border space if cropping dictates something not a 2/3 aspect ratio. I'm thinking the 800 is just a touch too big for portrait images even with new high resolution screen sizes due to toolbars and such.

So, I think I'm going to stardardize on 720x720 (720x480 or 480x720 or 720x720) on my website, model mayhem, and facebook; except for multi-image collages for the following reasons:

- It will nicely fit on the screen in portrait
- My new HD phone has a 720x480 screen (Samsung Epic 4G!)
- It shows on 720p HD TVs without resize (new ones connect to internet or have cards slots for slideshows, etc.)
- Having a slightly smaller image does hide some things and allows for tighter crops on larger images. If I need to show editing or image quality I'll show the close in crop with the overall image.
- Smaller files and faster uploads and viewing

It sounds like you have thought it through. And it sounds like it will do fine for you.

Many go small for a few reasons. They do not know the resolution the viewer will have on thier monitor. There are some still useing old CRT monitors there an 800 pic will fill the screen. Another is load speed. A 1600px image looks wonderful...but also can take forever to load. Then if you have 15 - 20 images or more that size... talk about a slow site.

I still like big images on sites. I am in the middle of shrinking the images in the gallery on my site for load speed. Then having a link to a full screen gallery if they want to take a better look. Thoes who want to see more will live with the wait.

In my opinion the bigger the better. However it depends on gallery layout and anything bigger then 1280 x 1020 (general desktop setting) is a waste. Smaller pics lose a lot of there impact and detail.
Another option... you could set up a couple of size choices under a thumbnail to let them choose their viewing size (usually done on wallpaper galleries). Depends on what options you want to let them have.

My plan is to have...

thumbnails 120x120
resizes 720x720
full size ?x? but restricted with permissions