Website Resolution/Size for Images

[HeldInTheMoment]

Hello All,

I just quit my job to do photography full time and working on revamping my website. What is the best resolution/image size for example photos to be displayed on a website?

Thanks!

 

[KmH]

For just display keep the file size (quality setting) way low.
1000 px on the long side should be plenty as far as image resolution.
Online images don't have a size (print resolution).

If you proof online, rather than in person, expect to leave a boatload of money on the table.

 

[HeldInTheMoment]

I guess the term 'Resolution' can be interpreted differently when it comes to print, file size, web use, etc. Anyway, I think I currently use 1500px on the long edge at 200 dpi. When I export from Lr I have it auto-sharpen for screen viewing. I just want a good size available on my site for examples of my work; something large enough to give a good idea of quality, but small enough where the site loads without delay (on decent connections).

 

[snowbear]

You want to find the balance between "large enough" to see details and small enough to load quickly. Many will not bother with a slow loading site.

DPI is meaningless to a browser. One of these is 72dpi, the other 300dpi:

 

[KmH]

There are 2 kinds of digital image resolution - image resolution (pixel dimensions) and print resolution (prints only, does not apply to online display).
And there is file size, which isn't a resolution.

 

[Derrel]

What is the best resolution/image size for example photos to be displayed on a website?

DEPENDS a bit by what that actually means. If you want to have a web site that allows people to click on photos, and to see, or to download, high-quality example images from a special Gallery or Samples page or pages, something in the 600k to 1.2 megabyte .JPEG image format, at around 1,600 pixels for talls and 2,400 pixels for "wides"...those sizes will show your images as being high-quality images.

A good example might be say, Facebook, where regular images are 900 pixels tall or wide, but for people who have checked "Upload in High Quality", their HQ images, for followers who hit the Download command on Facebook, they are then sent a 1,904-pixel long-dimension image, which really DOES look much, much better than a highly compressed, 900-pixel "regular quality" image.

Great big images, from today's 24MP Nikons, make people have to scroll and scroll to examine an image; my feeling is that 2,000- to 2,400-pixel wide (longer axis) .JPG im,ages look quite good to most people; an image that is scaled that size, and that has 600k or more of file size, will look like a "pro camera/pro photographer" type of image to most people. AND, it is also not so,so overly large that it will run into difficulty being down-razzed by most algorithms I've seen.

Again...not sure, exactly, what you had in mind; some people like to have a feew "sample" images that viewers can download. Keep in mind that in 2016, many of those will be seen on an Android or iPhone, as a TALL image....talls look like crap on many horizontally-seen computer monitors....but on an iPhone or Droid, a nice TALL image looks great!

 

[Parker219]

Can you still get your job back?