I always used to re-size my photos 800x600, then started re-sizing them 900x600ish. I notice a lot of other people on the forum size their photos at around 1024x683 or so. How many people out there have small enough monitors that makes that a problem?
I have a 20 inch monitor, so I can view them at 1024 by about 800, but what about others?
I used to size mine at 800 pixels wide as well, but when I started using flickr it became less convenient because 800 isn't one of the sizes they offer (unless your original is only 800). So now I use 1024. I actually think it looks better despite the potential for imperfections to be more noticable.
I used to size mine at 800 pixels wide, but recently I've been sizing them at 960. For vertical format I use 800 pixels high to minimize scrolling. The SSP pages accomodate them with little or no scrolling that way on my monitor, and they show better detail than the smaller size.
I have a 21-in CRT that I run at 1024x768 (any higher, and the text on some sites becomes hard for me to read). The 960 width fits my screen nicely.
I host my photos on my own web site, so I'm not constrained by a hosting service's requirements. I can use any size I want.
__________________
Getting thrown out of railroad stations since 1979!
Better than ever and always growing: [url=http://www.robertpence.com][b]My Photography Web Site[/b][/url]
I have very high resolution, so the larger the better for me, or else they are way too small. I post most of mine at 1024x683, and the ones that aren't so good at 500x333 so the flaws are less noticeable.
I used to size mine at 800 pixels wide as well, but when I started using flickr it became less convenient because 800 isn't one of the sizes they offer (unless your original is only 800). So now I use 1024. I actually think it looks better despite the potential for imperfections to be more noticable.
Are you using the Flickr Uploadr? Because they do offer 800 pixel size, and that's how I've been uploading mine for quite some time.
__________________
"Inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up and get to work." -Chuck Close
Are you using the Flickr Uploadr? Because they do offer 800 pixel size, and that's how I've been uploading mine for quite some time.
I just use the standard thing on the flickr website and upload the full-size image (typically 3800-something pixels wide), then choose the "large" version when I post here. If you upload the 800 pixel size to flickr, is that the largest size available?
Since I mainly post artwork on Flickr, I don't want image sizes larger than 800 pix, in case somebody wants to start printing the stuff. For on-screen viewing, it works just fine for me.
__________________
"Inspiration is for amateurs; the rest of us just show up and get to work." -Chuck Close
I just use the standard thing on the flickr website and upload the full-size image (typically 3800-something pixels wide), then choose the "large" version when I post here. If you upload the 800 pixel size to flickr, is that the largest size available?
Ditto. I upload my stuff at flickr and I will just get the "Large" size (1024 x 624) from All Sizes menu icon and link it back here with IMG tags and that will be it. If wanted to post in gallery "Click to enlarge" thumbnail style I will get the smallest thumbnail size of the image and add a LINK tag around the IMG tag.
I think it is just for the free accounts, or it has something to do with the way they resize them. I haven't noticed any loss in quality on my photos, but my camera isn't very good. (It's JPEGs are around 85% compression I think. I save them at 92 or 94% after editing, and 100% if I use bit depth decrease.)
If you set the Uploadr to re-size images to 800px, that will be the highest resolution of the photo they have. It's more for people who don't want any larger versions of their photos online.
^Interesting. I didn't know they did anything to the original image with the pro account, but it wouldn't surprise me if they did a bit of compression to save some space. I haven't noticed much difference.
I used to use 800x600 because that's what free photobucket did for you.
I like big pictures and my monitor can handle things in the 1600x1200 (horizontal) and whatever 1200 would scale to vertically with no problems, but I'm impatient and I also realize that not everyone has a big monitor or really wants to wait fifteen minutes for a sixty image thread to open so I use smaller ones which lets me hopefully get a reasonable load time for longer photo threads. For individual images I'll use the large (1024) size, but for my photothreads I'll pick a few images I love for large (1024) and then use the medium size (500) as a layout tool for vertical and horizontal images. I'll usually give a link to where the flickr photoset resides so people can see more or check out larger images if they want.
I like the visual density of my current layout process. It lets me illustrate how I see the world as a series of contrasts and an almost sensory overload. I'm like the Iron Giant when he first sees the scarp yard. I'm sure many don't like it and I'm sensing that because my photothreads have started generating fewer and fewer views and comments. Maybe I've just pissed everyone off.
An example (Peggy's Cove in Nova Scotia which didn't make it into my last photothread):
Maybe we should post some examples of the same image at different resolutions and make some qualitative judgements on them?
__________________
-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
If you set the Uploadr to re-size images to 800px, that will be the highest resolution of the photo they have. It's more for people who don't want any larger versions of their photos online.
I use the basic uploader (with a free account) and it doesn't allow you to set anything. Now that I think of it, I sometimes crop my pics just a bit off of the sizes they give you, and that would definitely effect the quality in some way, but some of them get effected quite a bit, more than I'd expect.
__________________ Where the trees are the right height
I have a 15" monitor at work, and a 17" at home. The 15" works ok with 1024 landscape images, especially if you put it on 'full screen'. Portraits have to be 800, though.
HIMS, I love the layout you use, so much so I've even considered stealing it . I think it works particularly well for your pictures, because the colour in them is so rich, the overall effect is sumptuous.
The layout is easy enough. [img=6] for big photos, [img=6] for the medium verticals and [img=6] for the horizontals. The two tricks are to crop images to a 4x6 ratio and I also created an image that is a single pixel wide 512 pixel tall image in pure black to use as a spacer for verticals. Because I do a bit of cropping of my photos down to 4x6 ratio so the math all works out nicely I occassionally get a 334 or 333 wide image in medium. I haven't worked out a solution for horizontal photos so I'm stuck finding matching pairs at present or recropping and uploading again to randomly get the right size.
I can't believe it took me an more than an hour working that out after determining the 5x7 ratio was inherently flawed for this: 2 x 7 = 14; 3 x 5 = 15. I rationalize that I'm old school and like the little 4x6 prints I was getting in the 80s.
Now, all I need is to be able to control the <link color> so I could link all the photos back to flickr without getting the ugly purple. Admins? Is there an option for that buried somewhere for the bbcode?
__________________
-- “We heal each other with kindness, gentleness and respect.” -- Richard Wagamese
-- “Unless someone like you cares a whole awful lot, Nothing is going to get better. It's not.” -- Dr. Seuss
Bigger is usually better, though not so large that one has to scroll to see the photo in its entirety. I use 1100 x 733. On the other hand, some photos look better at smaller dimensions.
Thanks guys. I've noticed more and more people using the larger image sizes. I thought I'd do it too, but was mostly wondering how many people have the bigger monitors that will allow that, and not wanting to ruin it for the ones that still have smaller monitors. I remember back when we had a smaller monitor having to scroll over for larger images.
Thanks guys. I've noticed more and more people using the larger image sizes. I thought I'd do it too, but was mostly wondering how many people have the bigger monitors that will allow that, and not wanting to ruin it for the ones that still have smaller monitors.
I recently did a small poll on SSC about my CPH thread and it seems a lot of people are now using netbooks, small laptops and phones, so there didn't seem to be any interest in larger res than the ones I use now ( 1000x666 )
Personally my screen is 1920x1200 so I welcome large pictures, but I do understand why most may not be too interested..
I also think bandwidth is something to keep in mind as we apperently still have many ( based on the speedtest threads ) who have yet to even hit 2Mbit and for them 50 huge pictures will not be a positive experience, not to mention most smaller or older computers don't have that much video memory or ram..
But with all that said if it's your pics and thread you should present the pics in a way you want them to presented, if people are having problems it's their fault for not using technology that corresponds to the age we live in
Prev
. I think it works particularly well for your pictures, because the colour in them is so rich, the overall effect is sumptuous.
Linear Mode
