I think it's a mistake to post too large because the instant temptation is to move to the next image. There are few experiences online more annoying than having to scroll an image up/down or left/right. I almost always refuse to do it. Why? Because a big image doesn't make a mediocre image any the better, and quite often a smaller image hides our feet of clay quite well, and it's not until a year later when we blush in silence at some of the stuff we've paraded with such pride, that we realise the clay might even be melting.
Look, whenever I put up a fresh image in PS I reduce the size to about postcard. Then, I can get the overall sense of what I have or have not managed to catch. In fact, I edit at about the same image size I post here and on my website: image 600 - 650 pìxels wide, and overall, including my standard frame, 810 pìxels wide. That is handled by LuLa perfectly because it falls within its system limit which I think is 1000 pixels largest dimension. (Of course, the files I'm working in are not reduced, only the percentage viewed onscreen is down to postcard, and when I have to work close up I go to whatever size is comfortable for that operation.) Having to scan a too large image with the eye defeats it: you need to be able to get the thing at a glance.
Perhaps I'm mistakenly applying censure, but it strikes me folks who post too big for my monitor are just expanding their ego. Period. My monitor is a LaCie 319, and that's plenty big enough at reading distance.
