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.
Peter-T said:
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!
Click to expand...

The option is to go 1024 wide. Maximum height will remain at 800.
 
imo, it's a bit of a catch 22 situation to which there's pro's & con's to both sides of the arguement. Below are a few which I think need airing from the past:

1) the 800x800px limit does ensure that images are compatable, from a 'view-ability' perspective, on the great majority of equipment members use to access the site with, however:

2) the 1024x800px limit allows members to demonstrate images of a size that does them justice, and:

3) some images posted, whilst looking great in 800px, would look a bit 'ish' if shown in 10240px, meaning that somethimes there could be false +ve critique on a 800x800px image, critique that wouldn't have been given in 1024.

I'd say that the 800x800px limit should apply in general terms, however there ought to be a concession allowed for 1024px images available (perhaps in the In-Depth section only?) for folks to either:

3a) show off an image they consider outstanding (for them) and is worthy of posting in the larger size for all to appreciate better, or

3b) in order to improve, to get honest critique on it using the larger size due to elements being lost if it was in the 800x800px format.

If 1024x800px lived on in some guise, I do think having a [1024px] prefix is worthwhile having in order for thread content identification...
 
kinda agree with the above tbh, imho it should be the poster who decides what res they post at within the limits rather than the viewer, if someone can't view something at 1024 then i'd say it's their problem, similar to the limiting the amount of shots in a wedding thread...it's the viewers issue rather than the posters.

if the poster wants to cater for everyone then so be it if not then allow 1024?

or allow 1024 with a tag as above or perhaps for the threads that are specified [critique]?

:D
 
1024 all day long. 800px is just too small to be able to give proper advice.

I use a 15.4" laptop and my phone without any issues.

Tip for everyone if you find 1024 too big, press F11 for a clean screen.

Dal
 
So are we finally gonna put this one to bed then?
it causes as many arguments as the wedding / canon v nikon / PC v Mac all rolled into one :p :D
over the years my preferred size ( for all the reasons I have stated in the past) remains the same :thumbs:

800 x 800
 
CT said:
I'm not sure that the difference in the two sizes is negligible....
Click to expand...

Yv said:
hang on, I will get my magnifying glass because my eyes can see no loss of detail between the two, only a size difference and i have to damn well scroll, with lappy set at highest res :bang:
Click to expand...

I'm with Yv here. Apart from the size, I see absolutely no difference. No, there's nothing wrong with my eyesight. And there's nothing wrong with my £420 Sony monitor.
 
MisterE said:
I'm with Yv here. Apart from the size, I see absolutely no difference. No, there's nothing wrong with my eyesight. And there's nothing wrong with my £420 Sony monitor.
Click to expand...

CT's image is a stunner, no doubts there. However, it's not one to be used as a yard-stick, imo. Although many others like it can match their larger size for quality when increased in size, some do become less than flattering beyond 800px
 
Last edited:
800 for me too I'm afraid to say.... If it aint broke then why try & fix it :shrug:
 
dlh said:
There is always the zoom feature in the browser ctrl +/- for little screens.
Click to expand...

Scaling images in browsers will degrade the sharpness and as I think Yv has said is why the forum doesn't automatically scale images down.

Voted 800x800 , maybe call a new vote in a year or two, or make it an annual thing :D
 
Thmaga said:
maybe call a new vote in a year or two, or make it an annual thing :D
Click to expand...

oh we go through this every year at least painful ain't it? :lol:
and the end result is always the same :D
 
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...

That's a great shot, fits perfectly on my 1280 wide lappy :thumbs:

Can't tell what the second one is though ;)
 
Well I liked 1024x800 but it is clear that we are heading back to 800x800. That is fine if it is the majority vote but what about those images already uploaded at 1024x800 will they be ok or do we have to locate and replace them?
 
*if* we do ever go back to 800, then those already posted will be fine :)
 
Is it worth advertising this vote a little more? Over 2,500 members online today and only 300 votes. An ideal opportunity for a global email? Just a thought :)
 
Most people link from places like flickr, i do. I like to upload my images full size there but they dont do 800x800 so i either post a smaller version than the 800 or i have to add another image to my account which some time puts me off posting images on the forum.

Most screens show 1024 perfectly well i think the 800x800 are for the laptop users not the desktop (coulds alway change screen res size on laptop i have and can see 1024 ok)

Globel PM/Email to get everyone in on this subject

Doesnt VB have a MOD/Hack that can resize images no matter what size they link to what ever size the admins want and a click will then allow it to be seen again in 1024 if so required????
 
jollyjack said:
Most people link from places like flickr, i do. I like to upload my images full size there but they dont do 800x800 so i either post a smaller version than the 800 or i have to add another image to my account which some time puts me off posting images on the forum.

Most screens show 1024 perfectly well i think the 800x800 are for the laptop users not the desktop (coulds alway change screen res size on laptop i have and can see 1024 ok)

Globel PM/Email to get everyone in on this subject

Doesnt VB have a MOD/Hack that can resize images no matter what size they link to what ever size the admins want and a click will then allow it to be seen again in 1024 if so required????
Click to expand...

I have a 1920x1200 laptop so it isn't laptop/desktop :shrug:

The problem with the any resizer jobby is that it buggers up the quality of the image.

I prefer 1024x800 but we will without doubt be back at 800x800 soon.
 
I don't like the 1024, I don't have to scroll horizontally but I just don't like it, its too in my face...irritating.
I could sit further away from the screen but then text would be too small, I like 800 x 800.
Incidentally, I post my photos at 550 x 550, I don't do that because I don't want anyone to see them now do I..
I'd like to be convinced otherwise but the pro 1024's think I'm stupid by dribbling a load of flannel about how 800 is the size of a stamp and 1024 is as good as A2, or that somehow TP is the problem, not moving with the times/everybodys got a 24inch screen nowadays/misc bull.
 
I dont care as long as people resize there images properley and use some usm .....


MD;)
 
cowasaki said:
I have a 1920x1200 laptop so it isn't laptop/desktop :shrug:

The problem with the any resizer jobby is that it buggers up the quality of the image.

I prefer 1024x800 but we will without doubt be back at 800x800 soon.
Click to expand...

If its not some people screen settings that prevents them seeing 1024x800 with it stretching the screen and they have to scroll to see it then what is the big fuss about 800x800. Is it a fall back to what i have seen else where that if the image is small enough it cannot be copied??

I just cannot see why people want it to be 800x800, if its just being linked to the forum the bigger size isn't taking up any room, its just time it takes to load it
 
CT said:
I'm not sure that the difference in the two sizes is negligible....

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...

Both images are fine. The problem is the use of the larger image distorts the forum pages, narrowing the main column in all other posts and the left margin in your post. The 1024 images disrupt the flow and enjoyment of the forum whilst adding little.
 
People are saying they can't be bothered to scroll across to see a 1024 image. To me that says they can't be bothered to add critique so their view is pointless.

Might aswell just make every shot 480px to suit all the snap shots.

This is the only forum I know that has this problem.
 
joxby said:
I don't like the 1024, I don't have to scroll horizontally but I just don't like it, its too in my face...irritating.
I could sit further away from the screen but then text would be too small, I like 800 x 800.
Incidentally, I post my photos at 550 x 550, I don't do that because I don't want anyone to see them now do I..
I'd like to be convinced otherwise but the pro 1024's think I'm stupid by dribbling a load of flannel about how 800 is the size of a stamp and 1024 is as good as A2, or that somehow TP is the problem, not moving with the times/everybodys got a 24inch screen nowadays/misc bull.
Click to expand...

Get out of my head.
 
2blue4u said:
Both images are fine. The problem is the use of the larger image distorts the forum pages, narrowing the main column in all other posts and the left margin in your post. The 1024 images disrupt the flow and enjoyment of the forum whilst adding little.
Click to expand...

I dont get this distortion on my screen, all columns are in correct place, this is down to your own settings
 
If we end up going back to 800 x 800 will we then have another poll ?
 
jollyjack said:
If its not some people screen settings that prevents them seeing 1024x800 with it stretching the screen and they have to scroll to see it then what is the big fuss about 800x800. Is it a fall back to what i have seen else where that if the image is small enough it cannot be copied??

I just cannot see why people want it to be 800x800, if its just being linked to the forum the bigger size isn't taking up any room, its just time it takes to load it
Click to expand...

I've no idea I was just pointing out that it isn't laptop/desktop. Most of the pro800 people keep saying that they have to keep scrolling etc. Having done a screen size question a while ago 1024x800 will fit on most peoples screen BUT......

The reality of it is this - Most people have made the decision that they prefer 800x800 !

I'm not about to argue with someone for that as it is after all personal choice. I would like 1024x800 but clearly it is going to a vote and the majority will win. Simple really
 
Dal said:
People are saying they can't be bothered to scroll across to see a 1024 image. To me that says they can't be bothered to add critique so their view is pointless.

Might aswell just make every shot 480px to suit all the snap shots.

This is the only forum I know that has this problem.
Click to expand...

No, the point is that by having to scroll, they cannot see the whole image on the screen at one time, something quite important on a photography forum. And their view is as valid as anyone else's on this forum.

As for other forums, I know of a fairly large and successful one where the limit is 600 pixels and no-one seems to complain. :shrug:
 
I voted 1024 BUt to be honest. I have no problem clicking a image for the bigger version if I feel he image is worth looking at larger...


How many people are going to be happy seeing a pile of carp LARGE...?




MD:lol:
 
..MD.. said:
I voted 1024 BUt to be honest. I have no problem clicking a image for the bigger version if I feel he image is worth looking at larger...


How many people are going to be happy seeing a pile of carp LARGE...?




MD:lol:
Click to expand...

I know a few Coarse Fisherman who'd be very happy to see that :lol:
 
TheBigYin said:
Don't even think of going there :nono:


:lol:
Click to expand...

:nuts: SORRY.

Ok Please you have teased me so can you please hurry up and take my lolly pop away, if its going to be 800x800 can we just get on with it. Has already been said most of the staff want it and they patrol the board and give up the time and the 1024 will never win the dont have to scroll and if you do get thicker lenses argument.

I just want to post images and get feedback on how i am doing, at the moment i dont have to resize to post here but if i do i want to start now
 
jollyjack said:
I dont get this distortion on my screen, all columns are in correct place, this is down to your own settings
Click to expand...

And it's fine on the computer I'm using at the moment. But not another iMac, the laptop or the iPad - which is my preferred tool for browsing when not working.
 
2blue4u said:
And it's fine on the computer I'm using at the moment. But not another iMac, the laptop or the iPad - which is my preferred tool for browsing when not working.
Click to expand...

so the 1024 poster's are told to shut up and put up because people want to use a ipad :cuckoo: its almost like saying post 500x346 because i am on dial-up

Ok time for me to wait for the outcome and shut up before i upset anyone, Please hurry up
 
Last edited:
Looks like 800 x 800 is the way it's going although I can't see how 1024 wide can be a problem even on a modest laptop.

There's obviously a reason why the 800 x 800 folk feel so strongly about not moving on from the small size but I can't really figure it out.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top