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.
joescrivens said:
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
Click to expand...

Not sure why your browser is opening at 800 wide. The TP theme fits to the width of the browser however big it is and certainly doesn't open up at 800 wide here.

Or am I completely misunderstanding you?
 
dlh said:
Not sure why your browser is opening at 800 wide. The TP theme fits to the width of the browser however big it is and certainly doesn't open up at 800 wide here.

Or am I completely misunderstanding you?
Click to expand...

If I extend my browser then it extends with it. But when it is first opened unless I put it to full screen it fits to 800 pixels. Maybe its a safari thing?
 
joescrivens said:
If I extend my browser then it extends with it. But when it is first opened unless I put it to full screen it fits to 800 pixels. Maybe its a safari thing?
Click to expand...

That's a shame and I would imagine a pain too. I'm not tempted to install Safari just to try it out though :D
 
ha, just learnt something new. If I resize Safari to 1024, close it completely and the restart now its set to 1024. So I'd like to change my vote to 1024 please :-)
 
joescrivens said:
ha, just learnt something new. If I resize Safari to 1024, close it completely and the restart now its set to 1024. So I'd like to change my vote to 1024 please :-)
Click to expand...

:lol::bang:
 
I just want to thank the team for putting this to the vote again. I missed it first time around and found 1024 a royal PITA even though i run a 1680x1050 22" monitor. If I undock the laptop and use it's 12" screen it's even more of a pain. 800 all the way :thumbs:
 
hepburn said:
I just want to thank the team for putting this to the vote again. I missed it first time around and found 1024 a royal PITA even though i run a 1680x1050 22" monitor. If I undock the laptop and use it's 12" screen it's even more of a pain. 800 all the way :thumbs:
Click to expand...

well never let it be said that this forum is a dictatorship - the overwhelming majority of staff preferred 800, but we act on member preferences, hence this vote. :thumbs:
 
I voted 1024x800. If that's the limit, most people will post at that limit I imagine, but as said people can choose to post lower.

Voted that as it's good for me, but if 30% preferred the 800 max I'd be happy with that rather than making it unusable for a significant proportion of TPers.

We can always vote again this time next year if we stay as we are for now!
 
I voted 1024 as thats what my screen resolution is set at:)
 
I voted 800. Surely it's better to have something that works for all users and reconsider when technology becomes standardised on wider screens.
 
I wonder how many people with larger screens aren't running them at their native resolution :thinking:
 
voted 1024x800 this time as the previous 1024x1024 was much too tall. (my screen is 1366x768). If I really want to see all a 800 tall image I view the page at 75%.
 
Voted 1024 X 800

Suits my screen and fits in with the sizes I have available to post.
 
800!

And I'm glad this time the vote is more out in the more visited areas of TP.

1024 images are a pain in the bum for me most of the time and I hardly ever look at them now.

If you can't tell how good something is at 800x then 1024 is going to make no difference.
 
fabs said:
Why draconian? And surely, being a photography site, it's important for people to be able to see the whole photograph? :shrug:
Click to expand...

I'm just expressing my opinion. Folks on here don't think twice about splashing out hundreds of pounds on the latest camera but seem to looking at monitors that can't handle pictures of a postage stamp let alone quality photographs. I've had my monitor a number of years now and due to be replaced but can still handle 1024 on the horizontal. I understand that some folk may have a problem with the size but I can't believe more than half (as it stands a present) can't view a 1024 picture.:shrug: I've never been one for looking at small images and tend to shy away from looking at posts that contain them. As I said, it's just my opinion but I feel going back to images in which the detail is often lost is a retrograde step. Overall this forum is very good but IMHO the 800 limit is its one serious drawback. Sorry!
 
Doog said:
I'm just expressing my opinion. Folks on here don't think twice about splashing out hundreds of pounds on the latest camera but seem to looking at monitors that can't handle pictures of a postage stamp let alone quality photographs.
Click to expand...


It is probably more that a lot of us use laptops - for various reasons and having to scroll around the screen to see the whole image means in my case anyway, that I just don't bother and skip over images that are too big, I have enough scrolling to do when I am editing, let alone viewing for pleasure
 
I do a lot of my surfing on the iPad, at 800 all is good, but at 1024 the whole pic is there, but shrinks all the text/rest of page, bit of a pain to be honest. :D
 
Doog said:
I'm just expressing my opinion. Folks on here don't think twice about splashing out hundreds of pounds on the latest camera but seem to looking at monitors that can't handle pictures of a postage stamp let alone quality photographs. I've had my monitor a number of years now and due to be replaced but can still handle 1024 on the horizontal. I understand that some folk may have a problem with the size but I can't believe more than half (as it stands a present) can't view a 1024 picture.:shrug: I've never been one for looking at small images and tend to shy away from looking at posts that contain them. As I said, it's just my opinion but I feel going back to images in which the detail is often lost is a retrograde step. Overall this forum is very good but IMHO the 800 limit is its one serious drawback. Sorry!
Click to expand...

No need for sorry, I was just asking a question and expressing my opinion as well. :shrug:

From my own point of view, I have a 24" mac but I can only just see a 1024 pixel portrait orientated shot. There are a very large number of people with smaller monitors than that so they would struggle, not to mention those with laptops.

As for the horizontal, I know I'm not the only one who doesn't have their browser open to the full width of the screen. It would literally be a pain i0n the neck to have to read posts from one side of the screen to the other.

As for the 800 pixel limit being a serious drawback, can 224 pixels really be that serious?
 
I can't say I've noticed any detail difference between 800 and 1024. When you're looking at jpgs of less than 200kb then pixel peeping is a bit pointless. It's the scrolling thing and the limited time I have to spend looking.
 
I think sayng that a lot of detail is lost at 800 over 1024 is perhaps a bit of an over exageration, I mean seriously, 200 px makes VERY little difference in the real world!.
However, I am a bit worried by someone mentioning allowing a third party to resize - one of the reasons we have never opted for a built in forum resizing is that as photographers [which actually would solve a majority of the complaints, which are that they use another size elsewhere], having control over how an image looks is surely paramount and is the reason I actually upload at 800 px to flickr, blog, etc because I know what the final result is going to look like. :thinking:

Finally, for those that want people to see an alternative size, there is nothing to stop you linking the pic to a larger version [that goes for 800 or 1024, whichever wins] ;)
 
Linking to larger versions means that you have to go through the rigmarole of creating and storing two sizes. Now if you could use HTML to resize the linked picture then all well and good but using [ IMG ] tags you can't do that, now if some people choose to view the forum on a netbook or whatever that is their choice, what if I wanted them to fit on my mobile phone, where do you draw the line, 1024 is hardly large and I would have thought most laptops could cope with that. My el cheapo monitor is about eight years old and can cope with it !
 
I'm not sure that the difference in the two sizes is negligible....

5062188429_340c0a333d_o.jpg


5062186631_43b27887d8_o.jpg


Overall, I'm still in favour of 1024, even though I haven't posted many shots at that size, mainly because my own website only allows 800 pixels max so I have to host on flicker for 1024 pixels. It would be nice to have the choice though, but let the cookie crumble where it may. :shrug:
 
CT said:
I'm not sure that the difference in the two sizes is negligible....

5062188429_340c0a333d_o.jpg


5062186631_43b27887d8_o.jpg


Overall, I'm still in favour of 1024, even though I haven't posted many shots at that size, mainly because my own website only allows 800 pixels max so I have to host on flicker for 1024 pixels. It would be nice to have the choice though, but let the cookie crumble where it may. :shrug:
Click to expand...

yea you can see the nail better on image no1 :D

Merc :naughty:
 
I have voted 800 - scrolling sideways bugs me and I usually just end up pressing "back". It's surprising how many people still use 1024x768, and it's on this res that scrolling is required.
 
It's surprising how many togs are using crap monitors to edit their own images. How can you possibly edit on a laptop which can't display a 1024px image?
 
After CT's comparison images (thanks), it's 1024 for me, not really a big quality improvement but, much easier to view.
 
dlh said:
It's surprising how many togs are using crap monitors to edit their own images. How can you possibly edit on a laptop which can't display a 1024px image?
Click to expand...

who said ANYTHING about editing? I edit on an iMac but browse the internet when relaxing from a laptop...and editing programs dont wrap all the forum stuff round them either, obviously.
 
You know how mobile phones can display certain sites as a 'mobile' version....

Isn't there something similar for people who choose to use little laptops ?
 
There is always the zoom feature in the browser ctrl +/- for little screens.
 
There is a significant difference there CT, I'd struggle to give a decent critique of these images at 800 pixels (on my desktop monitor) , on my 17 inch laptop the 1024 image sits comfortably without having to scroll (although I would have to at 1024 vertical)
 
I think part of the issue is that when the limit is 800 a lot of people just post at 640 which is a lot smaller than 1024.
 
See not everyone has a 24" screen. My laptop (which is my only PC) has a screen res of 1366 x 768 (16:9 format) So if you take 768 pixels, take off the taskbar, take off the one toolbar and the header of the web page and you dont have much space at all. so my vote always has, and always will be on the 800 option!

I love looking at larger pictures, but scrolling up/down/left/right is a pain!
 
I'd say 800 would be the choice for the pleasing everyone camp
and 1024 for the not stale stuck in the 1990s camp :)

there comes a point at which things must change and people will adapt (people will also moan)

obviously it's up to you guys though :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top