PDA

View Full Version : Is BIGGER better?



YakMotor
05-08-2009, 03:28 PM
Recent I've found larger photos can be displayed in forum posts. *Used to be (for me) using Microsoft's Internet Explorer version 7 photos larger than 500 pixels wide would display having the right side cutoff from view. *With Internet Explorer V8 this does not happen. *Firefox browser, which I now am using, also shows the whole image.

So with the crop limitation gone what size photos do we want to see in the forum?

Before voting consider that larger photos take longer to display which is a problem for folks with slow net connections like dial-up. *Larger also may cause cutoff problems on some viewers screen. *Small or older monitors may not accommodate wider images without having to scroll the screen ... which is a big hassle. *Larger pics have larger file size taking up more space on your computer's hard drive and on the host site you upload them to. *They also take longer to upload.

My sample illustrates a interesting benefit of smaller which is "zooming-in" *Trimming off the stuff outside the 500 wide gives the close-up effect of it having been shot with a telephoto lens. *This is how "digital zoom" works in cameras. *It magnifies the pixels so to speak.

I participate in a photography forum where users post 800x600 as the norm. *It seems to work well. *Most posters also limit the number of pictures they present in a single post to 10. *Normal is not a steadfast rule as frequently people want to post panoramas or other widescreen formats that don't show well if limited to 800 wide. *On the Retouch Board in that forum some people post much larger photos so a higher quality image is available for folks to work their edit magic on.

I've recently started posting pics 640 wide with no major complaints. *They do have a bit more impact, but don't really provide any more info over ones I've re-sized down to 500. *I've gotten used to 500 wide and they do look nice displayed within the sniffer forum layout. *I believe this layout is built-in to the forum software and is probably not easy to change. *My opinion now is that I'll go back to 500w for most of my report posts (99% on the Trout Board in the Amador thread) and only show larger there if the shot is special. *For the Photo and Art Board my vote will be 800 wide for the norm. *But, that's my opinion valued at only 1 vote.

What's YOUR opinion?

This shot is from my 9.1 megapixel Panasonic TZ5 point & shoot. *Original full frame size is in *4:3 ratio proportion (width to height) and 3456 x 2592 pixels. *Using Photoshop I sized it down to 1024 x 768 then overlayed the rectangles for smaller sizes.

http://img140.imageshack.us/img140/6639/sizeexample590.jpg

Prowler
05-08-2009, 04:00 PM
I like the 800 wide, but not as tall as 600 (my tool bars get in the way).

metalmouth
05-08-2009, 05:32 PM
I'm running Firefox so the 640 works for me.

Captain Compassion
05-08-2009, 07:02 PM
For this to work for the Sniffer everyone would have to be on IE8 of Firefox. I am still on IE7. Maybe I should upgrade.

CC

BuckSnort
05-08-2009, 08:16 PM
Before I upload pics to my host (photobucket ) I usually size them at 700 wide...

I found 700 to fit well in most of the hunting and fishing sites I frequent...Although I sometimes use a bigger size for certain pics that are best viewed at a larger size..

metalmouth
05-09-2009, 02:29 AM
For this to work for the Sniffer everyone would have to be on IE8 of Firefox. I am still on IE7. Maybe I should upgrade.

CC

It may take a while to bring everyone along to the newer versions. I just changed all of my puters out to Firefox and I love it. It even imports your saved cookies and favorites for you! If you change over some evening make sure you are logged out of the Sniffer first. ;D

YakMotor
05-09-2009, 10:12 AM
I had no problem going from IE 7 to Firefox as MM said it takes what it needs to get you going just about like you were except for learning about new features and stuff. No real slowdown in normal net use for me.

I'll mention it's been in my long standing procedure when installing ANY software to clear the computer of programs running in the background like software updaters, etc. and shutdown software firewall and virus checker. Once install is done I power down to reboot so protection is turned back on.

After going to Firefox I went back to update IE 7 to 8. No problem there either. My use now is about 95% Firefox & 5% IE.

One of the best features I find of both is ease of magnifying the browser window so I can better read small type on my screen. It helps to see detail in photos as well.

Prowler
05-09-2009, 10:42 AM
One of the best features I find of both is ease of magnifying the browser window so I can better read small type on my screen. It helps to see detail in photos as well.
Are you talking about pushing "Control" and moving the mouse wheel? I always thought that was pretty cool :D

YakMotor
05-09-2009, 12:50 PM
No, I don't have a wheel on my ancient (fits my hand and small desk space) Logitech Trackman Marble. I use the "+" & "-" on the keypad to enlarge what's in the browser window. I had been frequently using a magnify feature of FastStone Capture but that requires reactivating each time the window is scrolled up or down.

YakMotor
06-17-2009, 04:25 PM
Thought I'd bump this to the top to see if we can get more votes.

Hearing some more pros & cons on size for both posting and viewing would be welcome too.

Chief_Sniffer
06-17-2009, 06:56 PM
I like 800, and all of the photography sites I use (dpreview, fourthirdsphoto, didital-photography-school etc.) use 800 as their limit.

żżż
06-18-2009, 06:27 AM
If you're talking strictly about web-viewing, then having an option would be even better. I always prefer to see the image as the photographer intended - not chopped, cropped, and 'enhanced' to be web-friendly. But I understand that there are bandwidth and display limitations.

It''ll be up to the poster, but VGA (640X480) is probably good enough for the masses, and seems to work for the casual viewing most people do on this site. They just wanna see the fish! But it'd also be cool to have the option to click on the image to see it full size, uncompresed, etc. That's where it'll be up to the poster to go through the additional work to put a hyperlink on the photo to its full-sized cousin.

How 'bout an HD section that has only full-sized images? Members will be told that it may not display properly. Just thoughts...

Gotta run to work. :(

Tight lines, snapping shutters y'all...

cptdarel
06-18-2009, 12:57 PM
I'm running Firefox so the 640 works for me.
first time I tried firefox, it works, no duh, i may have to change.