Why does everyone post such massive pics?

[trebor31]

Something I have noticed amongst PhotoBloggers in general, not just PP users, is that they post massive pictures, which need to be scrolled on anything other than large res screens.

50% of computers have 1024x768 screen res - so why post a picture that 50% of the internet using population cant see in it's entirety?!

Yup, any picture looks better bigger, but no picture looks good when you can only see two-thirds of it!

[blinking8s]

Ive complained about this for ages...

[nygorilla]

Generally 800px on the longest side for me...

If you are frustruated by others, you are welcome to visit my site anytime :)

[trebor31]

If you are frustruated by others, you are welcome to visit my site anytime :)

If you live in Oz, I would rather visit your house!

(But I did visit your site - nice work and kudos on the 800px size!)

[dakwegmo]

I keep mine to 640 px on the long side. To prevent scrolling even for portrait oriented photos on wide screen displays. It also provides a small amount of protection from people stealing them.

[Joe[y]]

i have a fairly big resolution - but above all big images = slow loading times... which piss me off, i rarely wait more than a couple of seconds for an image - if it doesn't come then i'm off somewhere else.

[trebor31]

An excellent point Joe...it drives me nuts as well.
Hopefully people will cotton on at somepoint!

[wojtek]

well. I use 1800x1200 on two screens :-) and I post 850px wide or 800px high photos all the time :-)

[sentinel]

well maybe i'm wrong but according to my stats more than 2/3 of "my" visitors use 1280x1024 or any equivalent widescreen/higher resolution.
nevertheless i'm posting no wider/higher images than 800px (most of the time). maybe i'll test something that allows me to provide a big and a small version at the blog without using js..( i know bigger is not always better. but imho the trend definitly goes to higher resolutions than 1024 )

[austriaka]

some images look great when big, others when small. There are even images which look really amazing only in thumbnail...
I have a maximum of 600 x 450 right now, but for some images that is too small.
Sometimes I decide to do another format, 500x500 IE if I decide the motive fits better.
So I think the square size is up to the Blogger...

What I think worse is if the images have a too high resolution or are too less compressed. When I have to wait one minute for a 800x600 photo (what happens really often) I give up.

KArin

[sentinel]

hmm thats true. size is the next point..
the problem in my case is.. you loose the feeling for images sizes very fast if you're using high speed connections. ie you forget that there're still many isdn users out there (~100-150kb / (7-8kb/sec) = long time )

which size do you think is suitable for usage in a pblog?

[nox]

One of the rules of my blog is that the image size is 730 x 485 px in landscape format. That is big enough and I even thought about posting smaller images. The main problems with big image sizes were already mentioned.

I think a larger image size would enable people who steal from websites to use the photos for print or to easily get rid of watermarks by cropping. Recently I found some of my photos on other websites...

[danielf]

I have actually gone the other way: Bigger image!

Having 1600x1050, makes my images kinda small. But i've checked around, and on 1024x768 you the image should fit without a horizontal bar.

As for the stealing and stuff... I have seen that my images are beeing used else where. Especially my "Break Dance" image, which is on the first page on Google Images (http://images.google.com/images?client=opera&rls=en&q=break%20dance&sourceid=opera&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&um=1&sa=N&tab=wi).

Anyways, I think my images doesnt look as good in lower resolutions. I like them nice :)

You can find my images here:
http://danielforsbakk.com/index.php?showimage=124

[jdleung]

I use 500X375 pixel which I think it one of the smallest. and one week before I setup another template using 700px width and a inconstant height. http://www.jdleungs.com/index.php?category=2

[jaywilliams]

The photos on my site are 600x400. (or 400x600 for portrait shots)
Small, and fast loading. But to each his own.

[blinking8s]

Pixelpost.org gets a lot of traffic from various photoblog sites, we just picked up mint (http://www.haveamint.com) so we can formulate a better template and design guideline, its such a pleasing application for the stats you really need to pay attention to

Anyways, this months browser res and window size stats:

http://pixelpost.org/stuff/mint01.jpg

http://pixelpost.org/stuff/mint02.jpg

http://pixelpost.org/stuff/mint03.jpg

I have a prepress setup around my images, so with the design, i am still usable at 800x600 if you use 650 width images...i COULD go bigger, but my family is old and they check my photoblog, and all have 800xstupid600

[bjlawrence11]

Check out this thread: http://forum.pixelpost.org/showthread.php?t=5155

Here is W3C Display Resolution Statistics:
http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

*I've found that a pixel size of 800-850 seems to work well on the majority of current users @ 1280x1024.

[blinking8s]

window width is vastly important too, and this depends on each person,person x may have 1024x768, but he may have 38 toolbars and desktop sidebar, so his window width is smaller.

I RARELY have mine at full screen...but my screen is really large.

[johncpiercy]

My PP blog was designed by a kid ... he must have set my Height and Width at
760*505

Checkout my PP blog

http://www.fotoshift.com/

:cool:

[sbzx]

What I usually do is fit the image in a 752 by 500 box and set the JPG compression ratio so that the resulting image size does not exceed 300k. It fits and it loads fast.