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/addo...-resize-addon/