TP Image sizes : Final vote

Your preferred image size limit

  • 800x800

    Votes: 215 53.0%

  • 1024x800

    Votes: 191 47.0%
  • Total voters
    406
Status
Not open for further replies.
Marcel

Marcel

Kim Jong Bod
Admin
Messages
29,411
Name
Marcel
Edit My Images
Yes
The time has come to look at the image sizes again.

Unfortunately, offering 1024 high is out of the question. More and more people are browsing on widescreens now. Also, upping the width to 1024 hasn't been as successful as we (the mods and many many members) thought it might be.

We've had lots of messages from dissenters who were originally 1024 voters who have since said theyve changed their mind and in hindsight, 800 was better.

So with that in mind we want to run a quick poll. Please vote.
 
If it ain't broke, don't fix it... the 800 x 800 max worked fine for me, a little extra leeway on file size wouldn't hurt though, would be great to upload at 240dpi
 
iancandler said:
If it ain't broke, don't fix it... the 800 x 800 max worked fine for me, a little extra leeway on file size wouldn't hurt though, would be great to upload at 240dpi
Click to expand...

But DPI doesn't have any bearing on filesize does it? It's merely information in the header.

Do you mean filesize limitation on the TP gallery?
 
I have a 19in screen and it's square-ish. I always keep my browser toolbar visible so a 1024 picture just doesn't fit in. Honestly, I hardly bother scrolling across to see everything now, unless it's an exceptional picture. So it was, and still is 800 for me.
 
Personally, I'll be sticking to 640px max which is a flickr default size when grabbing an image code for insertion on here.

Makes me smile though after all the whinging there's been in the past. :)
 
800 is defo my choice.

I hate pictures where I have to scroll across the screen.
 
Marcel said:
But DPI doesn't have any bearing on filesize does it? It's merely information in the header.

Do you mean filesize limitation on the TP gallery?
Click to expand...

Sorry marcel, I'm not that up on these things, yes..
 
1024 for me. 800x 800 is so draconian especially on a photography site. Going back is exactly that. :(
 
800 is fine by me, I tried 1024 but photobucket reduced it to 800 anyway :D
 
Nothing wrong with 800x800.

If you can't see what you want to see in a displayed image that size then there is something wrong.

As a matter of interest, the other day I spread one of my images over a display wall consisting of 32 screens. Looked really cool!
 
I really didn't like 1024, just made everything feel cumbersome. It couldn't get back to 800x800 quick enough for me :)
 
800 on the longest side works fine for me and it's how I voted last time.
If anyone needs to show it larger, then just link to a larger version outside of TP.

Apart from storage, does larger filesize put more strain on the server?
 
I dont see why you just don't relax the rules a little. leave it to the uploader to decide the size, if people want to see it at 1024 that would then be their god mod given right :shrug:
 
I'd prefer 800x640. :shrug: isn't that what it used to be?
 
CGeezer said:
I dont see why you just don't relax the rules a little. leave it to the uploader to decide the size, if people want to see it at 1024 that would then be their god mod given right :shrug:
Click to expand...

Erm - we did for a while as a test didn't we, and it was unsuccessful.
 
Well I'm a convert too 1024 as they fit my screen perfectly. I would love the gallery to have a 1024 instead of having to use flickr.
 
I would much prefer 1024, I find 800 far too small, since I link directly from my picture hosting site it would mean I have to load two versions as everywhere else I upload 1024 is fine. In this day of large screens and high resolution reverting to 800 pixels would be a real backward step. Surely TP needs to be at the forefront of things. Whilst I appreciate some prefer 800 and of course their is the hosting space to consider, perhaps a compromise with TP hosted images being whatever is decided but if hosted externally then 1024 is acceptable.
 
Last edited:
I voted for 1024 as it fits on my screen no problem - but saying that I had no issues with the 800 size, whatever works for the forum is good for me :thumbs:
 
1024 for me no issues viewing on any of my screens including my laptop :shrug:
 
Well - I've mixed feelings - on the desktop machine it's been fine at 1024x800 - the laptop wasn't much fun though. Overall though, I have preferred seeing pictures at a bit larger size.

Out of interest - if we revert to 800px, will everyone in the current months POTY and all the calendar 2011 threads need to re-submit at conforming image sizes to avoid them getting an unfair advantage in the voting ?
 
Why not a maximium of 1024px on the longest side and then just a limit for how many you can either attach or embed and a target file size of 200kb as its the output file size that is more important for bandwidth and page loading times.

At 200kb target size which is the jpeg high setting in Adobe save for web it will take about 10 seconds for the image to load on a 256kbps connection or 2 seconds on a 2mbps so page load times will be acceptable for most users.
 
I'm in the same boat as Artyman, as most sites I upload to have 1024 on the long side I have to upload to my server two versions of the same image small one for TP and a reasonable size images for every where else, this seems to be the standard nowadays, while I accept that 1024 on long side in portrait mode means scrolling.

I still can't understand why most other sites have adopted the larger size (1024) , but TP struggles to make that step?
 
1024px here!

I think it definitly helps... detail in low f/stop images is easier to see, plus if you don't like 1024 theres no restriction to drop it down to 800px.
 
I really prefer 1024 in the horizontal. Us being photographers we usually have bigger screens for editing anyway. And I even run 1600 wide on my 12" laptop these days.

Personally I feel that landscape images have much more impact at that size, and you can see more detail in some of the wildlife pictures too.

Steve
 
800px for me - otherwise I have to scroll which is a PITA. There is no restriction on posting a link to a larger size hosted elsewhere.
 
Despite some scepticism first time round (I voted 800 originally), I'm actually liking the larger size now. So much so I've just resized all my images to 900x600 on my own site (they link through to here). I have no great desire to resize them all back down to 800 again, so voting for 1024 this time round.
 
Davie said:
Well I'm a convert too 1024 as they fit my screen perfectly. I would love the gallery to have a 1024 instead of having to use flickr.
Click to expand...

My view too.
 
Guys can I ask what will happen to images already posted above 800px on the long edge if this reverts back?

I've posted a few and flickr only gives me the options of 950px (the size I uploaded) then 633px.
 
I think the biggest issue isn't that people have the monitors they have, it's that the foum itself is developed at 800 pixels so when I open my borwser thats where it defaults to giving the need to scroll. If the entire forum was at 1024 then this wouldn't happen and all would be good. So the image size needs to be whatever the forum width is standardized at
 
As said before we are voting for an upper limit, just because you can post at 1024px doesn't mean you have to. 1024 for me.
 
800x800 for me but the file size could do with increasing as I have often found it necessary to reduce from maximum to medium output. This can make the image soft and receive critism about processing
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top