* My Profile My Galleries My Networks

website image resolution

yo stalkers, 

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 a quick download 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.

by [a former member] at 2005-07-21 20:40:43 UTC (ed. Mar 12 2008 ) Hanoi , Vietnam | Bookmark | | Report spam→

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.  Most of my shots at my site 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…

New website coming tonight, Monday, 9th Feb. 2009.
Paul Treacy

by Paul Treacy | 21 Jul 2005 20:07 (ed. Feb 9 2009) | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
thanks paul. i checked and that looks about right. cheers.

by [former member] | 22 Jul 2005 02:07 | Hanoi, Vietnam | | Report spam→
Hi Julian

If most of your images are then 35mm 600×400 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 & keep the image,navigation & other stuff inside this…t& have plenty of "white space" 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.
Have a look at my site www.markseager.com it has most of the above size & frame attributes that i mentioned.   Let us know when your site is up!

by [former member] | 22 Jul 2005 03:07 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→

My images are no larger than 303px in either height or width.  That was a choice made by the developers.  I have to ask them why 303px.  It has been suggested to make them larger by a couple of people.  I am leaning towards doing so, but it is not a huge rush of mine.  Hope that helps.


by Duwayno Robertson | 22 Jul 2005 23:07 | New York City, United States | | Report spam→
Something to consider is screen size.  It’s annoying to have images so large that you have to scroll around.  Although many people have large screens, a good target is to assume that people will be viewing your images at 800 × 600.  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 × 400 max.  Dealing with the whole portrait vs. landscape layout issue is also problematic.

by David Harpe | 23 Jul 2005 09:07 | Louisville, United States | | Report spam→
I change the image size to somewhere around 620×412 pixels and the use the “save for web” option in photoshop to get the best viewing quality and file compression.

by Thomas Michael Corcoran | 25 Jul 2005 07:07 | Washington DC, United States | | Report spam→
Hi Thomas just had a look at your site…..some really cool pics & some really funny stuff as well.

Cheers   Mark

by [former member] | 25 Jul 2005 07:07 | London, United Kingdom | | Report spam→
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.

by [former member] | 28 Jul 2005 04:07 | Vientiane, Laos | | Report spam→

Get notified when someone replies to this thread:
Feed-icon-10x10 via RSS
Icon_email via email
You can unsubscribe later.

More about sponsorship→


Paul  Treacy, Photographer Paul Treacy
London , United Kingdom ( LGW )
Duwayno Robertson, Photographer Duwayno Robertson
Indianapolis, In , United States
David Harpe, Photographer David Harpe
Louisville , United States
Thomas Michael Corcoran, journalist/photographer Thomas Michael Corcoran
Washington, Dc , United States


Top↑ | RSS/XML | Privacy Statement | Terms of Use | support@lightstalkers.org / ©2004-2015 November Eleven