|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
What do you feel is the ideal size for web images?
See how this developed since I went away from the computer for a while. Glad the DPI message dealt with. BTW my creds for backing up statements is that I worked as a designer and HTML coder for a web design company for two years before buying the boss out and expanding into graphic design too. www.clearfocusdesign.com (not just a shameless plug - evidence no less). A good isze for iamges though is 400 high as it means they can be seen on an 800x600 monitor in one go without the need to scroll and still look good for th rest of us who use 1024x768. chas Jun 25 05 01:47 pm Link Just because the monitor has a resolution of of 1920 x 1200 or whatever doesn't mean the user will be browsing full screen. The larger the monitor the more likely their screen is going to be crowded with browser, mail, text editor of some sort, iTunes etc running. The only app I regularly use full screen is Photoshop. Safari rarely exeeds about 1000px width. And don't make the mistake of thinking that because computer monitors are getting bigger that that is the only way people will view your site. PDAs and Smart-Phones with web access are becoming increasingly common and typical screen res is somewhat smaller than even 800x600. Jun 25 05 01:58 pm Link 375 x 500 or 393 x 500 Jun 25 05 05:09 pm Link 500x750 (750x500)... my monitor is set to 1600x1200, and that feels like a comfortable size for web display. I've gone smaller (400x600) but the images don't have the right impact. Jun 25 05 07:13 pm Link On my website- I use 360x450. I cant use bigger as my site has an inline frame structure where the top menu bar and site image is always on the monitor (and I want to avoid opening up images in new windows- that looks messy). Some folks have wished the file sizes were bigger but in the end its a free site with the intention of just showing my work- its not a paysite where you get huge file sizes to put on your deaktop wallpaper or something. -Jose Jun 26 05 11:26 am Link Posted by Jose- JoseOnline.com: I've seen wallpaper images with a company logo available as a downloadable link. Jun 26 05 11:32 am Link Besides the dimensions in pixels, the color information has a big influence on the file size. Make a square in PS and paint it white, duplicate it and make it green, optimize both for web and check the difference. today's monitors resolution are over 1000 pixel's/inch, most people set theirs higher, in my case I work for that , 800pixels the longest side. But 600 looks better for normal websites. I am not worried about people stealing my images, with Genuine Fractals, you can do almost anything. Jun 26 05 11:49 am Link no larger then 640 longest side. 72dpi anything larger is a waste. Simple Jun 26 05 11:50 am Link Posted by Robb Radford: You might want to read the thread. We pretty much put 72dpi to rest. Jun 26 05 11:55 am Link i keep my images roughyl 5x7in (72dpi) which comes out to about 500x300 px uncompressed jpgs. Jun 26 05 01:43 pm Link Posted by Jose- JoseOnline.com: Yeah, obviously you want something that works with your overall site design, nothing that's going to blow your tables out or something. Bandwidth/file size is less and less a factor, since so many people are moving to faster connections. It just seems like a 600 pixel image is really small these days, to me anyway. That's kinda why I was interested in knowing what different people thought was their ideal dimensions, without regard to file size/bandwidth considerations. It looks like people still like their images a little smaller than I would have guessed, which is certainly helpful to know. Jun 26 05 02:07 pm Link I use 700 pixels for the wider dimension. Correct me if I am wrong, but DPI is totally irrelevent in relation to online images. Only the pixel dimensions matter. DPI comes into play only for printing. Jun 26 05 02:14 pm Link Posted by rp_photo: We did not know that. Thanks! Jun 26 05 03:17 pm Link I hate to stir the pot on this but DPI is not totally irrelevant for online images. It is correct that a given image is always W x H pixels regardless of what you set the DPI for, but I have come across sites that use their own "intelligence" and scale the images when displayed based on the resolution setting of the images. In these cases, images left at 300dpi end up displaying like little postage stamps. So, I always set my images to 96 DPI. I know it is not the "correct" setting, as their is no single correct setting. However, I believe that works out as about right for a 1024x768 setting on a 15" monitor and seems to be a good overall choice. For those who might have confusion about DPI and image sizes, here's an analogy that might help (or confuse you even more)... Think about Miles and Miles Per Hour. If two cities are 50 miles apart (image size), driving there at different speeds (changing resolution) does not change that distance (image ize), it only change how long it takes to get there (output size). The reason DPI normally makes no difference online is most of the time the scaling info (DPI) is ignored and the images are displayed at a 1-to-1 ratio, 1 image pixel per 1 screen pixel. Output devices such as printers (or rather, the printer drivers) DO use this information... There, now everyone should be sufficiently confused!  Jun 26 05 03:24 pm Link Posted by Forrest Black: Hey Forrest, I know this thread has been beaten, but to state it simply, start with the lowest common denominator: Jun 26 05 03:33 pm Link Posted by Joe K. Perez: I'm not so much looking for advice or instructions, just sharing thoughts on preferences. I have fairly strong opinions on the subject. I've done years of magazine and other print production and I run a number of fairly successful image intensive websites, so the options and specs are not really that much of a mystery to me. But, I really wanted to hear and discuss what other people here thought was best from their point of view. I don't think there is a 'right' answer exactly, I just think that input from a lot of people with varied experience can still be educational for a lot of folks, myself included. The thread has been helpful and it's cool to have so many folks sharing their thoughts. Jun 26 05 04:43 pm Link |
