Subject:
|
Re: Picture size
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.publish
|
Date:
|
Wed, 13 Nov 2002 18:41:19 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
1196 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.publish, Frank Filz writes:
> > What do you think is a good balace between file size (speed) and largest
> > display (detail) of a jpeg photo on a website?
>
> A picture much larger than 800x600 is also generally wasted because few
> people run at higher than 1024x768 resolution. A 1024x768 picture is
> acceptable if the detail warrants it. Much larger and you're down to a
> tiny handful who will not have to scroll to see your image.
Agree, agree, agree, and agree. Just thought I'd put in that the only other
concievable reason I could think of for pictures in excess of 800x600 would
be for printing/photoediting purposes. But since that only occurrs once in a
blue moon (IE usually your target audience for something like this is one or
two people), I'd advise against doing it...
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Picture size
|
| (...) Anything in excess of 640x480 is too big for most users. Screen size is not the only issue - consider also bandwidth. The file size grows exponentially as an image grows. (Twice the width = 4 times the size, 3x width = 9x size, etc.) (...) (22 years ago, 14-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Picture size
|
| (...) I go for 800x600 or smaller generally. Sometimes a large picture is worthwhile, but if you are including the pictures in-line in a website, you might want to have a smaller picture with a link to the big one. Cropping is one of the best ways (...) (22 years ago, 13-Nov-02, to lugnet.publish)
|
6 Messages in This Thread:
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
