Often i would like to share bigger pictures but this survey told me, that most of the users here prefer even smaller images than my usual 1280px wide, so i don't do it.
But not so in this thread! Post any size you want taken with any camera or lens.
HD? What's the point of this? The reason why people generally do not like large sizes is because it means the image ends up being larger than the screen and as a result the viewer has to scroll up and down and sideways in order to see the whole image. It seems rather pointless IMO. Some times going against the grain is great, other times, like now it's totally pointless and illogical.
I can't see your photo without serious scrolling which takes away impact from them as you can't see the whole image.
time2clmb wrote:
HD? What's the point of this? The reason why people generally do not like large sizes is because it means the image ends up being larger than the screen and as a result the viewer has to scroll up and down and sideways in order to see the whole image. It seems rather pointless IMO. Some times going against the grain is great, other times, like now it's totally pointless and illogical.
I can't see your photo without serious scrolling which takes away impact from them as you can't see the whole image.
Just my $.02
Well people like you are the reason why i usually post smaller images and created a separate thread for images with more pixels. You don't have to visit here.
Some people have better resolving displays than you do and like to see higher resolution images, therefore it is totally logical for them to have this thread
Phillip Reeve wrote:
Well people like you are the reason why i usually post smaller images and created a separate thread for images with more pixels. You don't have to visit here.
Some people have better resolving displays than you do and like to see higher resolution images, therefore it is totally logical for them to have this thread
Here is my proposal: the centre of the survey distribution in the FM survey approximates 1200 pixels wide, we can agree perhaps.
A bigger matter is the sheer size of posted images, some of these of yours are huge (~1.5mb) and obviously linked from here to an external site/storage facility. Not everyone can or wants to do this, preferring instead to post directly to FM, where the images can presumably remain for longer, and as many are instructive that is a good thing.
There are plenty of issues especially for travellers, of for example, slow to no page loads and load times if they do work.
I guess I'd like to see the best of these issues emerge:
. width sizing of 1200 pixels,
. an increase in the image posting permissible filesize in FM from 400Kb to say 750kb. 400kb is so small I don't/seldom bother any more, as detailed images are not done justice.
It is also a good idea to have images viewable on as many monitors as possible, not just specialised equipment. I often view my work on work monitors for example, to see how other people will see them.
Special cases include pano images, separate rules can apply.
I think we need an annual check on the standard size (width generally) of posted images, to account for larger monitors appearing and dispersing more widely, though that trend will slow as it must, and workplaces often use multiple screens rather than larger screens.
How does that sound? Fred...if you read this, many fine images get posted here, high quality compared with much of the web fora, it would be a shame to continue to artificially reduce the pleasure they give viewers. Time moves on, storage is cheaper than it was. Maybe members can cough up a little more if need be.
I am all for this thread, and will post some images when I get around to it. I find that the photos I process lose most of the look in the final resizing step down to 1000 or 1200 pixels, so huge images are great, IMO. My monitor is a 27" and these photos just barely fit when I maximise my browser.
Absolutely right, carsten, they do look great...on higher end displays. But they look much less special on run of the mill monitors, like my work issue one!
I guess Phillip's point and maybe yours too is that we are posting for our own group. And others can take it or leave it - maybe a new forum - 'Fred Miranda High Definition', lol.
Yes, that last step from 1900 to 1200 is really rough. I often see the most interesting bits get lost in that step.
It is cool to have one thread where we post as large as we want, I think. It is marked "HD", so the people with 56k modems or 1024x768 just shouldn't come here. Everything I post here will also be posted elsewhere in 1200 pixel size, so they won't miss anything from me.
carstenw wrote:
I am all for this thread, and will post some images when I get around to it. I find that the photos I process lose most of the look in the final resizing step down to 1000 or 1200 pixels, so huge images are great, IMO. My monitor is a 27" and these photos just barely fit when I maximise my browser.
here is an old stitch with the rokkor 24/2.8 that i think looks much better larger: http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8422/7583214940_791b254cbc_o.jpg
and my standard upload size to flickr is now ipad sized, so most of my recent pictures are 1536x2048 including frames. i really think the retina ipads are a good reason to have larger images available on the web, anyway here are a few.
Images look great on my better than Retina Google pad display. That is why I got it. To be able to view higher rez versions of my images, especially finely detailed landscapes.
Also being able to rotate my Google pad for portrait orientation shots is nice.
