DSLRUsers.com

Was just about to post some more pics that I wanted to keep fairly big to show detail, and had an attack of conscience. I'm on cable in a fairly low demand area, so it's quick. I'm very used to this now, and tend to go for large images all the time since it doesn't take long, but I do remember what it was like on dial-up.

What size images should we post in this topic? Should we go for large ones that show the image well, or go for smaller ones in respect for the people on dial-up? Maybe make 'em URL links rather than inline, with a warning if it's big? What do people think?

FYI, that's the max number of responses - it lets you add more fields, but complains you have too many response fields.

Skippy,

I think that we need to be mindful of those who may be on not just slower connections (which is an important point) but also those who might be lumbered with paying Hellstra's exorbitant excess dowload rates, and keep the file sizes somewhat small.

Equally, not all of us use 21" monitors, and thus the image dimensions should also be kept conservative.

If you feel a need to post a full size image, then load that as a separate URL and post a reference to it with an appropriate warning regarding the file and image size.

Also consider that you can post a full-size crop, which might be enough to illustrate the detail you're wishing to show, but still allows you to keep the file size and image dimensions down.

I moved over to ADSL a few months ago, and my life has changed significantly. I feel better, my skin has a real glow, and I enjoy getting up in the mornings. You know, many people don't think that ADSL is for them, but I urge them to reconsider - live life to the full, you can download vastly more crap in the same time as before

If anyone is interested....

Pacific Internet 128/512 $55 per mnth unlimited downloads
(128 during peak - 8am-6pm mon-fri - 512 all other times.)
For me, this worked out cheaper than dial up + phone line rental + calls

I know all you IT types might scoff, but for the rest of us....

Greg B wrote:I know all you IT types might scoff, but for the rest of us....

Why scoff? That's what I'd do if I couldn't get cable. Beats 56, no wait 48, no wait 40k dialup. Cable was a no-brainer for me, $60 a month for unlimited and I got free install at the time...

I chose the 128 - 256kb for images as that should give you ample room to use a lower compression jpeg or a bigger resolution and higher compression and they are perfect for viewing on the web and don't take _that_ long to d/l via dialup.

Cheers
Brett

skippy,

I am with you on this. There are members out there who don't have broadband connection, or simply cant get one even if they want to. My personal preference will be external link and a lable if image is bigger than 750 kb.

that's my 2c worth (2.2 inc gst)

cheers,
ajax

Besides the broadband issue, I hate having to scroll left to right or up and down and not being able to see the full photo on my 15" screen.

I’ll go with Gary on this one.

One of my personal hates are pics that are posted (on other sites) that are so big there is no chance of seeing the ‘whole’ - scrolling under these circumstances is next to useless.

So, give everyone a chance

Chris

Gary, I've never yet posted a full size image, and don't intend to. The question came up because I was thinking of using a 1500 x 1000 image that came out at about 300kB. See my waterfall pics post in this forum. Not significant to cable users, but could be a pain over dialup.

Maybe I should have put the question in terms of resolution then. What resolution is a good compromise between image clarity and file size?

I'm kinda leaning towards something like this - inline images are fine if they're less than say 60kB, otherwise make them external links at whatever is appropriate, but label them with the file size. Again, if the majority (including dialup users) decide they don't care, then inline it is!

I do websites for my job (as well as a bunch of other tech thingies) and from my experience, between 10k and 80k is what I generally like to see.

Mind you, even if you go really over and you know you are, perhaps in the title you sticking something like "NOT FOR DIAL-UP USERS" or "WARNING 56K" or even "BROADBAND NEEDED" just to give them the extra warning.

Pretty much agree with what Gary said.

Also, the width in pixels is probably even more relavant. As others have said, scrolling can be a real pain on a forum such as this. If the pic really needs to be wide, give an external link with perhaps a thumbnail shown on the forum so we can see the style of image we're going off to look at

I agree re width - it is preferable not to have embedded pics that require horizontal scrolling.

So what is the best width then???

I have posted images with a longest length of 1000px and they show on my monitor with my resolution, but obviously would be to big for someone using a 15' monitor.

Should we pressume that most people are using 17' monitors or bigger nowdays? If so what is the most current resolution used? 1024 x 768 ( I personaly use much higher).

Can we get some good guidelines on image width for posting?

W00DY

I generally work on a maximum width of 800px for a web image, but will often drop it to 640px depending on what it is. I work on the assumption that most people will be running 1024x768 or similar.

One thing I've noticed is that most professionals will actually have the main image a little smaller again, which means it works well in their on-line portfolios.

Cheers
Brett

Probably between 600 and 800 as a highest width setting.

You should be aware that 720 is proper width that designers (should) use when designing pages as most pages are still designed for 800x600.

My target is 100K, I'll settle for a little more (maybe 125K) but beyond that I increase my downsampling.

I also set the largest image dimension at 1000 px. I have ADSL but like others am mindful of those on dialup. So my routine goes something like this:

1. Get the pic right in Photoshop
2. Choose Image Size & alter largest dimension to 1000 px (I have height & width linked so proportions are reserved).
   I Accept PS defaults for downsampling (Bicubic I think)
3. Choose File/Save To Web
4. Play with compression settings till it says I'm around 100K
5. Save file

One point: I'm having 2nd thoughts on Save To Web ATM since it junks EXIF data. I'm erring on changing this step to:

1. Change mode from 16 to 8
2. File/Save As/Jpeg

Cheers

I'm of the opinion that the file size is less important than the number of files attached in a lot cases.

I chose 128-256kb but I wont insert more than one picture in a thread. I think with our image review section it should be emphasised that we're talking about one image, not 12-18..

The benefits of this that I can see are...

Firstly, you dont get people posting 5 or 6 images in the one thread.

Secondly, people will actually insert the image into the post which means you don't need to load up a second page just to view the image.

Thirdly, you'll get a lot more detailed comments if you show people one image and ask for their advice than if you show them 12. 12 may get you.. "Lovely shots","great bokeh on 1,3,6,8,9" or "Nice gallery" but it wouldn't get you the really helpful multiple paragraph review of the image with contructive criticism,

Okay, I'm done now.. apparently I had a lot more to say about this than I thought I would when I ticked the box..

Dean that's a good idea. Maybe for people wanting a detailed critique they can post minimal images and put a keyword in or something along those lines. I still like looking at other pictures in groups and seeing how people will do different compositions on the same subject matter so multiple photos in one posting will still work as well.

Just my thoughts...

Cheers
Brett

I get what you mean..

I know the forum has exploded as far as the number of sections, but maybe a dedicated 'Gallery' section where people can do what you're suggesting.. where the idea is not so much to have your images ripped apart by hungry reviewers but just appreciated..

Just my thoughts as well

I pressed Preview, then Back.. large post deleted. Oh well here we go again.

Common sense really applies, i think everyone has used a modem and is aware speeds are between 2k and 6k a second depending on line and distance out in the country.

With the advent of broadband 1MB (1024kb) files are not a problem, but you have to ask yourself is your target audience likely to be modem users? and if so are they prepared to wait more than 6 minutes for said image?

I prefer to see threads marked [56k Warning] if the content is large.

As well as a warning thumbnails and external storage of images is also advisable... if you cannot use pixspot, investigate using your ISP's personal webspace (most users get 10MB or so). Internet Explorer is enough to login in to your ISP's FTP address and transfer JPG files. Learn how to use photoshop or ACDSEE or something else to resize images and make thumbnails ... the following code will make a thumbnail that when clicked on opens a new explorer window and loads the larger image.

<a href="http://yourisp.com/username/sample.jpg" target="new"><img src="sample_small.jpg" width=200 height=150 border=1 alt=""></a>

you obviously need to upload the files first via "FTP://yourisp.com" and change the code to reflect your file names and the correct ISP address, then copy and paste into your post ....

<a href="http://yourisp.com/username/sample.jpg" target="new"><img src="sample_small.jpg" width=200 height=150 border=1 alt=""></a>

example with HTML code disabled box left unticked

I think the appropriate size depends on what the photo is for. If the photo is to show, eg, what the group did somewhere, then something that fits the page and is of sufficient quality to recognize the participants and their activities is sufficient and I think these can be within the post if people prefer, although I think any more than 3 would be overkill.

If the photo is to show, eg, the quality of a lens, or for critique, it's pretty pointless putting up a shot that's very small or jpeg'd to a fuzzy death, because you won't be able to make any judgement about lens quality/focus etc from that. I agree, however, that an external link to larger shots with a size warning is a good idea.

One of my pet peeves at present is the number of such low res or tiny size shots around the web that are supposed to be examples of lens performance (some of them even in the middle of reviews done by "professionals").

I'll fess up to having broadband, but even when I didn't, and I bought my first digital camera, I wanted to download high-res shots to print for comparison of output and I just put up with the time lag.

In short, I think we need to strike a balance between size and intended usage, and be as considerate as possible of users with dial-up connections.

The pics i upload for showing are usually between 600-800 pixels wide and about 100k, give or take 50k.

Two reasons why i do this;

1. To aid speed of viewing (esp for Dialup users. Was one for twenty years until November. Now got 256k)(Yes, i was slow to change, i hate change)
2. Poorer quality pics reduces the chances of someone 'stealing' my images and using them without my permission. (If anyone would even bother to take my pics)

There you go.

I usually keep the width of a landscape photo at 800 pixels
and the height of a portrait photo at 600 pixels.
I also believe not to include more than three photos per post.

Cheers
CD

I prefer something around 800 pixels wide (landscape) and under 100kb. Anything bigger makes some people need to scroll, and takes ages to load if you have multiple images.

stubbsy wrote:One point: I'm having 2nd thoughts on Save To Web ATM since it junks EXIF data. I'm erring on changing this step to:

1. Change mode from 16 to 8
2. File/Save As/Jpeg

Cheers

Aha!! That's what's happening to my EXIF Data. Thanks for the tip Stubbsy.