Picture size

[The_Traveler]

I came back to visit after a long time away and can't understand some behavior.

People post these tiny little pictures and then ask for C&C.

How the hell do people expect anyone to say anything when the pictures are too small to see the detail?

Post larger pictures, people.

 

[Pugs]

Agreed! On the flipside, pics longer than 1000pixels on the long edge take freakin' forever to load and are really unnecessary!

 

[boomer]

As long as they are not the original size it doesn't really bother me since the board automatically resized larger photos. I think a lot of it will have to do with you screen resolution and size as well.

Example: if you have a 15 or 17 inch laptop with a 1680 x 1050 resolution or higher, a photo of = or less than 1000 pixels might seem small. Now my desktop is also 1680 x 1050 but its 22 inches. Photos look much bigger on there.

I resize all my veiwing photos to 1280 on the long side.

 

[Pugs]

It resizes them after it downloads it. So a pic that's 2400 pixels on the long edge will download completely and then be re-sized to 1000 except I'll have hit the back button long before then.

 

[boomer]

It resizes them after it downloads it. So a pic that's 2400 pixels on the long edge will download completely and then be re-sized to 1000 except I'll have hit the back button long before then.

lol ya, I forgot about that. I changed my mind. Giant pics bother me too!

 

[KmH]

.....it doesn't really bother me since the board automatically resized larger photos..

It bothers photography forum web site owners, and a lot of users, a great deal!

That's why most photography forums, like TPF, ask people to resize to no larger than 800 pixels, or smaller, on the long side.

One of the other forums I visit daily won't show all of an image more than 640 pixels on the long side.

I resize all my veiwing photos to 1280 on the long side.

Many people who are regularly on the Internet still have 800x600 monitors.

 

[Josh66]

I think you'll also notice a lot of pictures posted at 500 on the long side, as that's what Flickr automatically resizes to and probably at least half of the members here host their pictures there.

If you upload (to Flickr) larger than 800, there is no good size to post. It's either too small, or too big.

 

[Derrel]

I really could care less about the folks with 800x600 display settings,and I think they are distinctly in the minority these days; sure, when a 15 inch momnitor was common, a display setting of 800x600 was common, but even my eight year old 12 inch iBook has a higher display setting than 800x600. People who are interested in photography and imaging typically have big monitors, well above 800x600.

Not many people are hosting their photos here on TPF servers, so the burden,what little there is, is not on TPF's servers, but on the actual hosts of the photos being linked to--pBase,Flickr,SmugMug,PhotoCamel,PhotoBucket,etc,etc. Honestly, a photo that is 800 pixels wide on the long dimension is pretty skimpy in terms of showing image quality, lens quality, or a photographer's technique. Images shown at 800x long dimension might as well be shot on a 2MP point and shoot as with a 21MP 5D-II. people posting images that are 300 to 400 pixels on the long side and asking for critique is what the OP was about; I saw three landscapes shown that today, at about that size, and there really was nothing to "say" about the photos. I saw an early 7D beta tester who shot some pics around NYC, and at the typical small Flickr size, a horribly,horribly out of focus shot of a pretty girl in front of a wrought-iron fence looked in-focus and fine on the web--but at 1600 pixels, it was clear the guy had blown the focus by at least three to five feet behind her.

 

[The_Traveler]

There are several free or low cost hosts that won't resize your images - Photobucket or Imageshack.

I host pictures at the size I expect them to display (usually 600-660 high and width as required.

I don't want to depend on automated resharpening by hosting servers to make my pictures look good.

 

[Dominantly]

Mine for example?
Would they have been better served bigger? I'm just asking because I could fix it with a couple clicks, I just didn't want to make them too big.

 

[The_Traveler]

Mine for example?
Would they have been better served bigger? I'm just asking because I could fix it with a couple clicks, I just didn't want to make them too big.

If you want good sensible critique you need to give viewers enough detail so they can actually evaluate the photo. Make them as big as you need to show the detail and let the site owners tell you when they're too big. You can't see sharpening or fine detail, particularly in a face, when its 200 pixels high.

No one will be angry if they have to scroll up or down to see a portrait that's 700 pixels high if its a good picture.

As long as this is my rant-post, let me also say that when relatively inexperienced photographers want CC but don't allow their posts to be edited, I tend not to spend too much time on them, just because it's almost impossible to describe what can be relatively easily shown.

 

[Dominantly]

We had a thread on that very topic. I think quite a few, if not all the people, who have selected (not OK to edit); don't mind if someone wants to edit a photo to show a technique, they (We/I) just prefer not to have it open to everyone, at every skill level, who opens the thread.
"it never hurts to ask".. Or if it's too bothersome, then no loss.

 

[Garbz]

No one will be angry if they have to scroll up or down to see a portrait that's 700 pixels high if its a good picture.

I disagree. If you want sensible critique yes the picture should be large, but it should definitely not be larger than the screen or too large to see without scrolling.

What do you want to critique it on anyway? Sharpness? Noise? Are we critiquing the quality of the camera or the quality of the photo?


This will always be a contentions issue. My screen has a native resolution of 1900x1200 and the last time I posted a bigger image that fitted very nicely (in my opinion) in a forum window, I got complaints that people needed to scroll and that it was too big.

This will always be a fine line drawn in a very wide bucket of water.

 

[Chiller]

Recently, having some images "borrowed/stolen whateverthe freek ya call it" and used on another site, with the owner claiming my photos were his, I now only post low res images, with a cheesy frame. It is a photo forum, and if you cant make out enough of the image to critique it...oh well. I only take the info I want and ignore the rest anyways. :lmao:
A few of us had to get together and shut the guy down , but it was my warning that this is only a photoforum, and I will only use my higher res images to print my images, and not display them here. Anyways...I wont get into it. Lesson learned. :er:

 

[The_Traveler]

What do you want to critique it on anyway? Sharpness? Noise? Are we critiquing the quality of the camera or the quality of the photo?

This will always be a fine line drawn in a very wide bucket of water.

I would be happy to see 600 x 900 images posted. Many, many of the pictures posted here are significantly smaller than that.