Are the photos on the forum a bit small in size?
Maybe it's my monitor and the resolution setting but does anyone feel that the photos posted on the forum appear a bit small? I'm using an Mac with a 15 inch screen.
I find I need to click on most of the photos to see any detail.
Also, are most of us using the Blogger photo hosting? I tried using it a while ago and went back to the hosting on Photobucket. I found that the photos using the Blogger system were too small and there was a loss in quality.
I find I need to click on most of the photos to see any detail.
Also, are most of us using the Blogger photo hosting? I tried using it a while ago and went back to the hosting on Photobucket. I found that the photos using the Blogger system were too small and there was a loss in quality.
posted by martin at 2:48 PM
3 comments
3 Comments:
I thought about this a bit when I first created this forum. At the time, there was Hello! Bloggerbot for uploading images with thumbnails to blogger. Since then, blogger added this feature into their system. I kind of like the thumbnail approach where it forces you to click on the image to see the full detail. By doing this, you get to view the picture by itself, without any other distractions.
As long as you keep the original to a reasonable size, I don't find any loss of quality on a blogger hosted picture. I like the idea that all the pictures and articles are "self contained" in the blogger system. It's kind of a hassle to have to manage a seperate hosting site.
However, I'm open for suggestions. On my personal blog, I put full size pictures right in my articles, and they do look much better on the main page as full sized images. I wouldn't be opposed to doing this, but if we are going to change, then I propose that we all do it, in order to have a consistent look.
I personally like using the blogger photo hosting, and choosing the "large" thumbnail size. The two flickr posts by Benson used thumbnails that are too small, IMO.
If we want to post large, 3rd party hosted pictures on here, I want us to stick to the rule that all pictures must be no larger than 750 to 800 pixels on the longest side.
What does everyone else think?
--WT
I'm with Warren on this one - I also like the "Blogger-style" where there is a reduced-size image in-line with the text and you click on it to get a largr photo. I just think it looks more "magazine-like" and appealing. Strictly personal preference.
For the record, I almost always post images that are 640 pixels on the longest side - that seems to work well, but I should try 800 pixels and see how it looks.
I use the "save to Web" feature in Photoshop (Elements) to set the imaage size - it also rejiggers the image resolution to 72 dpi, which is standard for photos on the Web.
I often find that after the first "save to Web", the photo loses some sharpness, so I give it just a little sharpening at that point and do a "save to Web" again.
-- SteveR
Steve, I tried 800 pixels for a while, but then I settled on 750 pixels because it seems to cause less resizing for people who use 800x600 resolution on their computers.
--WT
Post a Comment