<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>[Lightstalkers] website image resolution</title>
    <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution</link>
    <description>An entire Lightstalkers thread via RSS/XML.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <item>
      <title>website image resolution</title>
      <description>yo stalkers,&amp;nbsp;&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
need a little advice from anyone with experience putting out their own website. i'm working on my own, hope to have it out in a few weeks. i need help with image resolution. i want to strike a good balance between&amp;nbsp;a quick download&amp;nbsp;and slick appearance. for instance, the images on the national geogrpahic sites are too low res for my taste (i guess because they are v concerned with protecting their images. but why not just use watermarks?). on the flip side, some shooters have gorgeous sites that take ages to view the hi-res images. . . is there an industry standard emerging for pixel count? i'm more intersted in showing the site to editors (who have fast[ish] computers) than to the general public, so if push comes to shove i'd rather err on the side of image quality than speed. cheers.</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 12 Mar 2008 12:53:51 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>600 pixels will look just fine and save them at jpeg 7. Editors will not need anything larger and larger just takes too much of their time anyway.&amp;nbsp; Most of my shots at &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.paultreacy.com&quot;&gt;&lt;span style=&quot;font-weight: bold; font-style: italic;&quot;&gt;my site&lt;/span&gt;&lt;/a&gt; are 600. See what you think. I'd suggest that editors would prefer smaller rather than larger as they will know whether it's a good shot regardless of the presentation. Don't you think? Also, at 600 pixels the size is more than adequate and no one is likely to steal such a small file so you won't need to worry about digital watermarking. All at 72 ppi of course...&lt;br/&gt;

New website coming tonight, Monday, 9th Feb. 2009.
Paul Treacy
http://photohumourist.com</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 21 Jul 2005 20:50:48 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5446</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>thanks paul. i checked and that looks about right. cheers.</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 02:55:38 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5452</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Hi Julian&lt;/p&gt;
&lt;p&gt;If most of your images are then 35mm 600x400 pixels is a safe bet...if like you say you are mainly pushing the site under editors noses then it is likely they will view the site on large monitors but be advised if the site is viewed on a small notebook screen say 14inch then it is really important that you create a frame &amp;amp; keep the image,navigation &amp;amp; other stuff inside this...t&amp;amp; have plenty of &amp;quot;white space&amp;quot; then it matters not what size screen the site is viewed on....i hope that makes sense. Also remember you do need to optomize your image for the web. i.e convert the file so it is between 50kbps to 100kbps....in terms of quality if you start out with a good scan or large dige file then it will still look good.&lt;br/&gt;
Have a look at my site &lt;a href=&quot;http://www.markseager.com&quot;&gt;www.markseager.com&lt;/a&gt; it has most of the above size &amp;amp; frame attributes that i mentioned.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Let us know when your site is up!&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 03:44:54 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5455</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>Julian,&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;a href=&quot;http://www.duwayno.com&quot; target=&quot;_blank&quot;&gt;My images &lt;/a&gt;are no larger than 303px in either height or width.&amp;nbsp; That was a choice made by the developers.&amp;nbsp; I have to ask them why 303px.&amp;nbsp; It has been suggested to make them larger by a couple of people.&amp;nbsp; I am leaning towards doing so, but it is not a huge rush of mine.&amp;nbsp; Hope that helps.&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
Duwayno</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 22 Jul 2005 23:55:47 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5484</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>&lt;p&gt;Something to consider is screen size.&amp;nbsp; It's annoying to have images so large that you have to scroll around.&amp;nbsp; Although many people have large screens, a good target is to assume that people will be viewing your images at 800 x 600.&amp;nbsp; By the time you allow for room for the desktop, nav bars on the web site, etc. you usually end up at an image size of around 600 x 400 max.&amp;nbsp; Dealing with the whole portrait vs. landscape layout issue is also problematic.&lt;/p&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Sat, 23 Jul 2005 09:11:57 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5493</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>I change the image size to somewhere around 620x412 pixels and the use the &quot;save for web&quot; option in photoshop to get the best viewing quality and file compression.</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:06:28 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5528</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>Hi Thomas just had a look at your site.....some really cool pics &amp;amp; some really funny stuff as well.&lt;br/&gt;
&lt;br/&gt;
Cheers&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; Mark</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 25 Jul 2005 07:18:01 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5529</link>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: website image resolution</title>
      <description>thanks everyone for your advice. should get my first peek from my techie on the weekend. we'll see how it ends up looking. . . . will be sure to post it up on the stalkervine in due time. cheers, jules.</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 28 Jul 2005 04:14:54 +0000</pubDate>
      <link>http://www.lightstalkers.org/posts/website-image-resolution#5658</link>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
