Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2002/05/29
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]I agree with Mark here--I think it's good to see pictures at a reasonable size when they can take the enlargement. I don't mind waiting a few seconds for a 50-100K JPEG to load over a modem if it means I can see important detail. Wide angle pictures especially need to be enlarged a bit beyond postage stamp size if one is to see the perspective properly. When I format my better-quality pictures, I assume my limits are a 17" monitor at 1024 x 768, and the browser at full screen view. I try to make them as big as possible within these limits without forcing any large-scale scrolling. I think an ~700 pixel limit is reasonable for vertical pictures, because it's about as much as can be displayed vertically on a 1024x768 monitor. Unfortunately, with vertical pictures, you are limited to a much smaller picture than horizontal, unless you want to force the viewer to scroll. Some of the "rules" about picture size on the Web are really about not boring random surfers with very short attention spans. The purpose is speed, not quality. The name of the game is to be fast enough that they don't click away, and you get more clicks on your site. Since we're supposedly into higher quality here, we don't need to follow those rules. - --Peter Klein Seattle, WA Bill Clough wrote: > > Oh, dear--Someone on the LUG told me not to save the > pictures any larger than 700 pixels on the long side. > Mark Rabiner wrote: >In my opinion it would be so nice to be able to think we are seeing the >differences between Nikon glass and Leitz glass. ...Tri X and Agfapan 25. >With such small images when one says "what do you think about this >picture?" all we can really comment on is the expression on their face. - -- To unsubscribe, see http://mejac.palo-alto.ca.us/leica-users/unsub.html