- This topic is empty.
Why?
-
Hi all,
I am constantly wondering why members post images at such a wide
variety of sizes.We have thumbnails where we have to navigate to another site to view the image.
We have large images that some of us have to scroll around to look at the image in installments.
We have lovely landscapes posted with the long side maybe 500 pixels wide and sometimes with an
added border to make the image even smaller on screen.I can understand a new member having difficulties at first.
With a little initial help it should not prove too difficult a task to resize an image to the
recommended 800 pixels.When posted at this size it would not be too small to restrict assessing the image for
critique and would not be too large to fit on the average screen.I’m off now to get a life. :)
John.
John
You may as well take a large wooden mallet and beat your toes with it. The
people who use this site make a huge effort and – by and large – get things
almost right. After 10 years writing websites I can confidently say that most
users should not be allowed anywhere near a computer.I get frustrated when software tries to do everything for me but I realise that
it simply can’t do enough for most people. If you have any doubts try to get
an average interweb user to “open Google in your browser” and he or she
will often start a panic attack that needs hospital treatment. “Open a file browser
and go to C drive”, should normally be enough to finish him off for good.800px being the standard for landscape images is probably a bit of out date to be honest… we’re probably catering for a minority of people. In this day and age most people use monitors with a fairly high screen resolution.
I post most landscape images at 1024 pixels wide and portrait images at 800 pixels tall and I’d guess that 95% of viewers are fine with that… so I’m not going to get too concerned about the other 5%.
Images that are way too large and skew every post below them are junk Thumbnails to hosting sites I’d rarely bother with. Stuff posted at 500px might get lost in the wash if it’s not part of a set.
J
*Edit* Agree with PTB… more people should learn to Google for stuff.
Hi Pete The Bloke and John,
Mucho thank yous for taking the time to reply.
I feel better already. :)
I must give some attention to my screen resolution. :?
Pete I’ve been using that mallet for years. :)
Thanks again,
John.
The only problem with upping your screen res (assuming you can) is that the smaller stuff seems smaller again.
Mine is 1280×1024 but me Da cracks up when I leave his PC at this setting. He’s 60, wears glasses for reading and likes the screen to be “big”.
J
Hi John,
My old Dell laptop has a max res of 1024 x 728. :cry:
It’s given good service but it is probably in need of an
upgrade in the near future.It always seems that loads of things need upgrading. :?
John.
“1024 x 728”
That’s what me Da uses… I find though that images sometimes don’t look as well when displayed at lower res as well as some websites not displaying fully e.g. 7DayShop.
If you do upgrade, go to a high screen res and wear glasses then you might find any change hard to adjust to.
J
nfl-fan wrote:
“1024 x 728”
That’s what me Da uses… I find though that images sometimes don’t look as well when displayed at lower res as well as some websites not displaying fully e.g. 7DayShop.
If you do upgrade, go to a high screen res and wear glasses then you might find any change hard to adjust to.
J
Go all the way and set the res at 2440 x 1280 and wear magnifying glasses (or 50mm
camera lenses inverted and attached to normal specs with sellotape).nfl-fan wrote:
Nah.. 2440 x 1280 is for wimps.
Ooops. I didn’t know that. Sorry.
Hi lads. I agree about posting at least 800px. As a certified eejit when it comes to using computers, even I managed to figure it out how to do it. I did have to delete my flickr account to do it though as for some reason all images started to go to 500px.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
