Do you have a preference when it comes to the dimensions of images you download? I personally prefer images wider than the resolution of my monitor, so I get clean, crisp images when I set things to full screen. I'm curious what everyone else prefers.
Do you care what size the images you download are? Is bandwidth a concern? When I launch my website (did my first shoot today) would you rather download images at 3,000px by 2,000px; 1,500px by 1,000px, or 750px by 500px? Let me know.
Thanks.
Posted by Rider Aldebaran (Member # 38525) on :
As long as it's not too small, and I can still make out the good stuff.
I also don't like super-big images, because they tend to slow down my laptop.
I have an image of the Sombrero Galaxt that's like 11000 x 6000 or so, and I can't even open it to shrink it without it causing problems.
Posted by Iowas foot slave (Member # 28971) on :
Anything above 1024x768 is fine by me. Nothing bigger than 2000 though.
Posted by catsman (Member # 10269) on :
I do not like the images that take forever to scroll. I really like the entire image no larger than my screen. Too much of a good thing......
Posted by temp1234 (Member # 33411) on :
The bigger; the better! I don't like small images at all. Facebook's images are as small as I'd go.
Posted by LeDaemon (Member # 198) on :
My preference is an image that fills the screen without having to scroll around to view it.
Posted by Beautifulfeetonline.com (Member # 13717) on :
I don't even index sites on digitaldivas if the pics are less than 650 px horizantally or 700 px wide. Some webmasters need to know it's not 1999 anymore imho. If your going to have an affiliate program, the only way your gonna "kill it" is if your promo tools rock your surfers socks! And have lots of content.
It is a very interesting time for the Biz though, heads up. Best of luck though and post the url when your up.
Posted by FIASCo (Member # 1899) on :
I'm fine with 800x600 since I like for the entire image to easily fit on the screen.
Posted by PublicName (Member # 12270) on :
quote:Originally posted by LeDaemon: My preference is an image that fills the screen without having to scroll around to view it.
This is also my preference, that shit is bothersome
Posted by nusuth (Member # 7372) on :
very interesting to hear. i post some images to my blog where the feet must be damn close to lifesize in a 1024 x 768 resolution. makes me think that maybe i should be resizing pics to make them smaller.
Posted by Robotron2084 (Member # 33263) on :
quote:Originally posted by LeDaemon: My preference is an image that fills the screen without having to scroll around to view it.
Ditto...
Posted by footsniffer444 (Member # 38564) on :
As long as it's big enough for my phone (Nokia 5800 touchscreen) and is clear enough. Any thing at 360 x 640 and above is good enough for me.
Posted by Toetapper (Member # 6473) on :
I prefer larger photos with lots of detail. It should fill my screen.
Posted by Keyfeet (Member # 27313) on :
lol, this kinda sounds like a question that girls get all the time
Posted by Diabolicus (Member # 7743) on :
quote:Originally posted by Keyfeet: lol, this kinda sounds like a question that girls get all the time
At first that's what I thought this was, didn't see the word image at first. Haha.
Posted by goodguyneighbor (Member # 2824) on :
Most browsers will automatically resize huge images to fit your screen while still retaining the option to zoom in, giving you the best of both worlds.
1024x768 is so 20th century, and now a decade into the 21st century, I am absolutely dumbfounded that BHE sites were recently reduced to 800x600.