Size of Photograph in a Blog?

[Mark Jones]

Hi!

Am curious if there is a "standard" for the size of a photograph on a photoblog?

I am currently using 1024x768, while it looks just fine on my MacBook Pro 17" running Safari ;) I am thinking it may be to big for the masses ...

I was thinking of changing my post to 1024x640 or 800x600 ...

Not sure, can someone set me down a proper road in this ...

Regards,

Mark Jones

http://photoblog.tejanoscatfish.com/
http://photography.tejanoscatfish.com/

[dakwegmo]

On the websites I run, by far the most common screen resolution is 1024x768. There are plenty of people who run higher resolutions, and a handful still running 800x600, but I'd say the masses are running 1024x768. As a practical matter this means that an 800x600 will fit on the screen, assuming they don't waste a lot of space with toolbars, start bars, and you don't put too much stuff above the image in your template. I have recently started using this size for my photoblog. One note though, is that 600 x 800 image won't fit on the screen, so viewers will have to scroll in order to see the whole thing. For portrait oriented photos, I try to resize to 700 pixels high.

[Mark Jones]

Hi!

Thanks a million for your suggestions ... I am going to resize all I have to 800 x 600 ...

Regards,

Mark Jones

[Scarabaeus]

I use 800 width always for portrait or landscape. This also keeps the size of the watermark constant.

[jaywilliams]

It's also good to point out that not everyone views the web with their web browser taking up the full screen. Especially once you go to a larger screen.

It may be a bit old fashioned, but I always try to make sure that my sites are still readable, and functional at 800x600, since my browser window is around 1000px wide.

But to each his own. :)

[kevincrafts]

I read a web article not too long ago where they did some statistics of browser window size. If you're site is 750 or less, 90% of viewers will see it. Once you start increasing it over 800 the percentage starts dropping off. By the time you get up to 1024 30% of your viewers will need to scroll. I also came across another statistic that says only 50.4% of users maximize their browsers. So the more important statistic is the browser size, not the overall screen resolution.

[austriaka]

the other thing to notice is that images too large in kB need quite a time for loading, even in times of Highspeed Internet and ADSL Connections. I try to keep my images around 200kb and a maximum of 800px width rsp. 750px height.
And I stopped sticking to a predefined size, some photos win a lot by "unusual" format

[marc]

I use 650px as maximum width / for my pictures. why? don't know. But I don't like the idea of sharing my pictures hi-res on the web. And for most of my pictures 650px max seems to be a good deal. But if a picture needs more, why not. file size - as others here - not over 200kb. normaly 150 is enough for me.

[jacko]

I upload a photo and expected pixelpost to re-size it for me but it didn't. It's huge. And I don't see any setting in the admin panel to tell pp to re-size the original to, say, 800 X 600. Do I have to do this before I upload?

Thanks
Jacko

[Dennis]

Jacko, you can resize it prior to upload or use the resize addon: http://www.pixelpost.org/extend/addons/auto-resize-addon/

[jacko]

Great! Thanks.

Jacko

[Scarabaeus]

Also higher resolution photos will take up more space if your hosting is limited and you are posting frequently.

[oswegan]

I post all of my photos with a max of 700px on a landscape, and 500px on portrait. This still requires a little scrolling on a 1024x768 screen resolution, but looks terrific on anything larger. It doesn't always give the same effect as a large print, but sometimes smaller is better, and I hate the thought of slowing the page down too much with large files.

[jaywilliams]

With the next version of my Photoblog, I am planning to use some JavaScript to choose either a large/small image depending on the visitors browser window. That way people with big screens can view the photos in great detail, and people with smaller windows can see it without having to scroll.

That way I get the best of both worlds. :)

[oswegan]

That will be really cool. I've seen a couple sites that do that.

[zac]

For a while I had two addons combined that would allow me to keep the site fixed at 800 with a button to enlarge the photos to fill the screen. I was using the autoresize addon:

http://www.versioncheckr.com/feed/dkozikowski

and the lightbox hack from this thread:

http://www.pixelpost.org/forum/showthread.php?t=3583&highlight=lightbox

Worked well for me :)

[Scarabaeus]

I would say that different sized photos suit different templates or styles.

[dcsurfer]

For those of you that resize your pics before upload, here's a cool tool if you haven't seen it yet:

http://www.multipleimageresizer.net/

It will allow you to resize entire folders of pictures, add a suffix/prefix to the file name, change the names, crop, change DPI and the list goes on. Best of all it's free for non-commercial users.

[EdwinK]

Never mind.

[EdwinK]

Tried another Image resizer, Auto-resize (admin_autoresize - version 1.0) - status: ON , set the size on 600, but still it's the images are too big. With the following error message:

Warning: in_array() [function.in-array]: Wrong datatype for second argument in /home/bookieb/public_html/fotos/admin/images_edit.php on line 575 on all the images.

[Dkozikowski]

If you are using Pixelpost v1.7.1, try updating the resize addon to the latest version, 2.1.3 http://www.pixelpost.org/extend/addons/auto-resize-addon/