Image Sizes

[glloeb]

Okay, assuming all you have on a page is say a 20px top bar and an image with 10 or so pixels of padding/margin how large should one make the image? I was planning on using a vertical size of 525px for all images, but having seen other sites I am reluctant. How do you size your images? What do you believe is standard? I feel like it would be best if a person using a resolution of 1024x768 would not have to scroll in order to see my images, if so, ones image sizes are very limited because of the windows/finder bars and any navigation bars in firefox/IE/other browsers.

[Joe[y]]

750px wide at most and 600px high at most. that's what i would go for. defeinetly wouldn't go larger than 600 high.

[glloeb]

Do you think 525 (vertical) is too low?

[Joe[y]]

Do you think 525 (vertical) is too low?

nah. unless it makes your image too narrow. i wouldn't go below 400px wide. that's tiny.

[blinking8s]

i keep mine at 650x433, the design makes it just barely break a 800x600 monitor, but im an oldschool whore and still abide by the 800x600 because i know my grandparents and all their friends still run it...

[glloeb]

Hmm at a 2:3 aspect ratio (D70) a vertical image ends up as 349x525 the horizontal ones are much wider however. If I set the width on a vertical image to 400, the height ends up at 602, which may be too high.

[blinking8s]

yeah, but having to scroll for a verticle when at 800x600, in my opinion, is ok...if its breaking 768 browsers then i think you are in trouble

[spence]

I keep my photos 600 wide by 400-350px high depending on aspect ratio (usually 16x10). For an example of how this flows, check out http://rig.hteo.us.

Here’s a few interesting resources:

www.echoecho.com -- current screen resolution statistics, internet wide.
www.mandolux.com -- benchmarked this site when designing mine. I really like how the small pictures work on his design.

I also prefer sites that keep the image "above the fold". Its really frustrating when I have to scroll down to see the entire picture.

Cheers.

[premii]

IMO, its safe to move to 1024 page layout,

http://cnn.com
http://nytimes.com
http://yahoo.com <- try new page.

I was part of redesign process, and less thn 20% of visitors resolution was 800x600 or smaller in year 2005.

[blinking8s]

IMO, that depends on your audience...my photoblog is much different than the audience of the new york times. Ive seen browser stats flux 20% between months, and Im not going to force my grandparents out of easily viewing my photoblog just yet...and each one of us may be different. Itsd something we all must figure out on our own from researching this information.

when you say you were part of the redesign process, redesign process of what?

[parl]

I prefer 750 x 500 because that 's what my old Canon D60 works out to be.
I also have Parents that live in a 640x480 huge icon world therefore I like to cater to their myopic eyeballs.
I also live by a rule that the image size should be about 150k or less