To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.publishOpen lugnet.publish in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Publishing / 3816
3815  |  3817
Subject: 
Re: Picture size
Newsgroups: 
lugnet.publish
Date: 
Thu, 14 Nov 2002 23:06:26 GMT
Viewed: 
1463 times
  
"David Eaton" <deaton@intdata.com> writes:

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...

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.)

Thumbnails should link to something no bigger than 640x480.  If you
want to have a larger version available, have the 640x480 link to
that.

All is IMNSHO... :-)

--Bill.

--
William R Ward            bill@wards.net          http://www.wards.net/~bill/
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
        Consistency is not really a human trait.
                         --Maude (from the film "Harold & Maude")



Message is in Reply To:
  Re: Picture size
 
(...) 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 (...) (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
    

Custom Search

©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR