What image sizes do u prefer?

[abel]

ive had an old version of PP running for ahwile and just decided to get a complete new domain and install...

now im setting things up again and was just curious to see what image sizes do you guys use on your own sites?

my lone image on my current site is 800x533 but ill prolly back off of that and go down to something like 700-750px wide

thanks!

[Joe[y]]

i use 700px wide - would never go above 750px wide. height doesn't really matter but as a rule i limit that at 700px - just for page load speeds really...

[tiburonsita]

I prefer the smaller size. I hate scrolling to view the entire image. You don't get the same impact.

[raminia]

640 OR 600

[Nemesis]

Depending on the site layout.
If the layout is fixed then I usually would use 640.
For liquid layout it's safe to use 800px.

[blinking8s]

this sort of choice usually requires a little planning, you have to know what your target audience is viewing on. 800x600 is slowly being phased off the planet (thankfully) but its still common and still there. 2% of my photoblogs traffic was 800x600 res monitors, 600px wide photos then design and spacing took up the screen on their monitors. My next design breaks 800x600 a little, looks better at 1024x768 but is capable at 800x600 cause that 2% is more than likely my family members (grandparents) and I want them to be able to navigate around as well...

in the end its up to you, but dont break a 1024x768 res at any cost...thats def the max you want to design for, remember that design, scrollbars and stuff take up space, so carefully plan out and test your design, post back here with concepts and see what we think ect.

[vincenzosi]

I go for 800 wide. With my Rebel XT, that makes the image 800 x 533, and with my Minolta X50, it makes it 800 x 600. The difference in quality and detail from 600 x 400 is huge!

Plus, if your pictures are the main focus of the site, and all you have on the page (IE: a very "clean" layout) then why not take up as much screen real estate as possible with your images?

[blinking8s]

eh, actually the smaller the image the more "sharp" it appears on many monitors, but thats not really an issue here, we're talking about...if you photos are 800x533 and someone comes along running 800x600 res on their monitor, they can only see like 700x400 of that entire page, and have to scroll around to read, navigate, and never see the full image. Now...stats are pretty low for 800x600 people...but they are still there

[raminia]

I have a double line task bar on may win xp and beside this, address bar/Bookmarks toolbar/Google Toolbar/Developers Toolbar/Tabs on my firefox and I see almost the same portion of the page as a 800x600 visitor does. So, I decided to keep a resulotion that I could use presonally without scrolling...;)

[sbzx]

A photoblog/gallery is about the images, isn't it? Bigger images look better than smaller ones. About $200-300 would buy you a decent LCD screen with a minimum of 1280x1024 pixels resolution... I usually use 752 by 500 size on my site (scaled down from my 6MP 3008 by 2000 raw images).

[blinking8s]

the power of an image can be greatly increased by the form it is presented in though...

[jlencion]

I had been using 800 pixels wide or 800 pixels high for my images because I figured that most of my audience would have a resolution that would support that. Well, after getting Mint (haveamint.com), I found out that most of my visitors are using 1024x768 for their resolution. This is great for 800 pixels wide, but when looking at 800 pixels high, they have to scroll which definitely diminishes the impact of the image.

So, starting with today's shot I actually scaled back to 700 pixels wide or 700 pixels high.

[vincenzosi]

Now...stats are pretty low for 800x600 people...but they are still there

Almost non-existent in most cases, I would guess. Most LCD's have a native resolution of 1280 x 1024, and I know very few laptops (newer ones) running at anything smaller than 1280 x something. Only the iBooks seem to be defaulting to 1024 x 768...

I think if I got a complaint from someone about my layout, I'd change it, but so far so good.

[Joe[y]]

there will be a day when 800 x 600 is extinct. but i have no reason to switch until then.

[blinking8s]

my resolution stats

1280 × 1024 34%
1024 × 768 31%
1680 × 1050 11%
1152 × 864 5%
1280 × 854 3%
800 × 600 3%
1600 × 1200 3%
1280 × 768 2%
1280 × 800 2%
1440 × 900 2%
1920 × 1200 1%
2560 × 1024 <1%
1400 × 1050 <1%
1280 × 960 <1%
1792 × 1344 <1%
1152 × 768 <1%
128 × 120 <1%
1152 × 870 <1%
1360 × 1024 <1%
1050 × 1680 <1%

[raminia]

And here's mine
1. 1024 x 768 43.4 %
2. 1280 x 1024 38.2 %
3. >= 1600 x 1200 9.2 %
4. 800 x 600 5.3 %
Unknown 3.9 %

[GeoS]

Mine:
640x480 0%
800x600 8%
1024x768 54%
1152x864 7%
1280x1024 20%
Other 11%

[dannisnokiller]

my old template i used 400px for the short side, since i've upgraded to pixel post i've been using 500px on the short side, i may boost that to 550, because the images seem too small.

i like my guests to be able to click through the archive without scrolling, because i know i like a site that i don't have to scroll myself.

[jlencion]

My stats:


1024 × 768 41%
1280 × 1024 23%
1600 × 1200 6%
1680 × 1050 6%
1152 × 864 5%
1400 × 1050 5%
800 × 600 4%
1440 × 900 3%
1280 × 800 3%
1280 × 854 1%
1280 × 960 1%
1920 × 1200 <1%
1152 × 870 <1%
1280 × 768 <1%
2048 × 768 <1%
1600 × 1024 <1%
1152 × 768 <1%

[skennedy1217]

Like most of you I'm optimizing for 1024 x 768. Anything bigger and I'd be alienating the 8% of my visitors who are stuck at 800 x 600 (third most popular!). I size my horizontal images at 750 x 500. Anything vertical is at 333 x 500, since I don't like losing the visual impact.
1024 x 768 61%
1280 x 1024 9%
800 x 600 8%
1400 x 1050 6%
1280 x 960 4%
1280 x 800 4%
1920 x 1200 3%
1344 x 1008 3%
1680 x 1050 1%
1440 x 900 1%
One thing to keep in mind is that even if you design for a certain size, you don't know what the viewer has done with their browser. For example, they may or may not be showing the status bar. They might have a Google toolbar installed, too. Then you have the space taken up by the tabs in Firefox. All of it eats into the image space. I've thought of cutting back a bit to shorten the height.

[fotogram]

Jumping in the bandwagon...

This date is from 4 days running Mint:

1024 × 768 43%
1280 × 1024 41%
800 × 600 4%
1280 × 854 3%
1680 × 1050 3%
1400 × 1050 3%
1600 × 1200 2%
1280 × 960 <1%
1920 × 1200 <1%
1152 × 864 <1%


I set my images to be 800 wide(max) by 600 tall (max).

[blinking8s]

in school 722 was as large as i would go for the design, it left and inlking of roomon old cluttered browsers. now i push it to a somewhat comfortable 750 but im sure a few people have issues with some stuff. Oh well...

[Nemesis]

People that visit my site are mostly designers so I know they have large enough resolutions :)