How big should posted photos be?

[Jeremy Roussak]

I've been musing on the best size for shots posted on this forum. There have been several images put up for critique recently which seemed to me to be simply too small for anyone to form a valid opinion on either artistic or technical matters (I think they were about 400x600).

What do people think is a reasonable size? I've taken to uploading jpegs exported from Lightroom at 80% quality, limited to 1200 pixels on the long side. They fit nicely on my 24" screen and don't require too much scrolling on smaller screens. They seem to be a reasonable compromise between a small image which loads quickly and a more detailed one which takes a long time to load, particularly over the slower connections that some members are forced to use (hi, Ed B!). I've not had any complaints yet...

As a side issue, do you prefer looking at shots posted as a link to an externally held image or one that appears as a thumbnail and requires a click to be viewed? My own preferences are for the latter, since it gives control to me as the viewer; it avoids the problem which arises when the external link ceases to be valid; and it doesn't reload each time I return to the thread to read new comments.

Thoughts?

Jeremy

[cmi]

I don't care at all, I think its a secondary problem. I have no problem looking at small images. If Im really interested I request a bigger one.

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

I like the 1200 pixels max with thumbnails. Although I have a fast fibre optic DSL connection, there are still LL viewers with slow Internet connections, so the thumbnails are a great kindness to them; they have the option of clicking or not.

Eric

[Ed Blagden]

particularly over the slower connections that some members are forced to use (hi, Ed B!).

Thanks for thinking of me!

For me, 400x600 images are usually not worth looking at: they are too small to make any decent appraisal.

I would guess that the majority of viewers will be using a 1280 x 1024 monitor, and I think images should be sized accordingly.  Allowing for window edges, a size of 1200 max width and 850 max height works well.  Of course it depends on the image, but at 70 - 80% quality in Lightroom Export, this yields a file which will be around 500KB.  Which is fine for a moderately slow internet connection.

Those who post bigger images should also keep in mind that for those of us with a "normal" size monitor the images often don't look great.  This is because Firefox (and I would imagine IE) renders the image to fit on the screen, which causes a loss of sharpness and contrast.  Of course, the user can always expand the image, but then you have to scroll around which isn't much good either.

I also agree that small thumbnails should be the norm - for those with slower connections, embedded image links are a major irritation.

Ed

[RSL]

I agree with Jeremy and Eric. The combination of 1200 pixels on the long side and a file size of around 500K give all the sharpness you're going to get out of a normal monitor. Uploading more than a 500K file is impolite at best, and thumbnails give you control over the situation.

[JeffKohn]

I want to be sure that most viewers will be able to see the image on-screen in its entirety, preferably without on-the-fly resizing (which is often of poor quality). I'm more interested in feedback on composition, tone, and overall impression; and having to scroll around to view different parts of the image can get in the way of that.

Also, if you're the type who's concerned about image theft, posting very large images makes them more attractive targets. I tend to think these concerns are mostly overblow, but I also wouldn't post full-size originals.

I've been keeping my images to 800 pixels in the long dimension, partly due to limitations of PBase. Most folks who browse my images on PBase are going to get the auto-generated "large" version of an image (unless they explicitly click on the "original" link). PBase does an absolutely terrible job of resizing images, they end up looking like fuzzy mush. But if I upload my originals at 800px, the original image will be used for the "large" version. The exception to this is panos, which would only be a couple hundred pixels tall if I limited them to 800px wide.

I'd like to post images a bit larger, but will probably need to consider new hosting options first.

[Jeremy Roussak]

Also, if you're the type who's concerned about image theft, posting very large images makes them more attractive targets. I tend to think these concerns are mostly overblow, but I also wouldn't post full-size originals.

That's one of many reasons not to post very large images, I agree. I doubt that 1200 pixels on a side is large enough to be attractive to a thief, though.

I'd like to post images a bit larger, but will probably need to consider new hosting options first.

Not if you use the option of uploading your image to LuLa and posting it as a thumbnail. It's my preferred option, for the reasons I set out.

Jeremy