I've been uploading full size photos for web use, by now thinking about moving to only upload files resized at 1024 (longest edge). The move is to save space and to reduce potential for internet theft (not that's really a big deal to me). What size do you use for the web?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Best size for the web
- Thread starter Razeus
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
My only uploads to the net are for this forum and flickr. If I go up from A3, the max someone can download is around 2000x1400 at 72 dpi. If I do the final edit in PhotoShop, then I cut it to fit in a 1200x800 box. I leave the dpi set to 300. They are both thieve-able sizes, but I haven't seen any of my work anywhere.
Dale
Dale
I used to upload at 1600 pix or 1024 pix, jpeg 10 quality, depending on the image and detail I wanted to present.
However, now I've gone to 800 pix at jpeg 7 quality....
However, now I've gone to 800 pix at jpeg 7 quality....
I go up to 1000 on the long edge for landscape orientation and 800 on the long edge for portrait orientation. Somewhere in there seems to be the internet sweet spot. It's worth noting that 500px.com goes with 900 max, up from their old size of 500, obviously because that size gives a good amount of visual impact.
I usually do 1024px wide (the Aperture JPEG export preset).
I took a look at your 500px, nice pix
I signed up and uploaded a few pics, although it's only showing one atm, it's a nice site.
I took a look at your 500px, nice pix
I signed up and uploaded a few pics, although it's only showing one atm, it's a nice site.
Just an FYI, you should use 7 as the quality setting. Use 6, you'll retain more information than you do at 7. Weird, I know, but it's true.
I took a look at your 500px, nice pix
I signed up and uploaded a few pics, although it's only showing one atm, it's a nice site.
Thanks, Reef! You have to give us a link to your pics so we can follow you and vote on your images!
I'm still figuring it out, but it seems like a good way to have some fun with my photos. At first I was turned off by the idea of ranking, but then I realized that it's just a bit of sport...all good fun!
Currently I've settled on 1024px in the longest dimension. I picked this value as it matches the iPad's longest dimention.
However, the site I'm developing lets me display the images at any size I want and I'm using 500px for an iPad gallery. I was using 600px for a Flash gallery but that was a bit too big for the iPad.
However, the site I'm developing lets me display the images at any size I want and I'm using 500px for an iPad gallery. I was using 600px for a Flash gallery but that was a bit too big for the iPad.
Currently I've settled on 1024px in the longest dimension. I picked this value as it matches the iPad's longest dimention.
However, the site I'm developing lets me display the images at any size I want and I'm using 500px for an iPad gallery. I was using 600px for a Flash gallery but that was a bit too big for the iPad.
That's a really good idea to match the iPad's resolution, but you lost me with the last part...if 1024 is the longest dimension of the iPad, then why would 600 be too large?
That's a really good idea to match the iPad's resolution, but you lost me with the last part...if 1024 is the longest dimension of the iPad, then why would 600 be too large?
Ultimately I want to use the iPad to showcase my photos. So that's where the 1024 figure came from.
On the other hand I also want a web page with a gallery site. By the time you add thumbnails, info areas, keywords, etc. 600 pixels was just a bit too big. You can take a look at the work in progress if you would like:
http://photography.jeffknox.com/ios3.html
Keep in mind that this is only a couple of days worth of work so it is very rough. The images are capped at 500px but you are able to tap on an image to get a larger view. (That part isn't uploaded to the server yet.) The tab pannel to the right hand side can be navigated by swiping left/right or by tapping on the arrows in the header. The thumbnails can be drug left and right to scroll, tap to select.
I did consider larger images where tapping on the image would bring up the controls but decided I wanted the info and image to be display together as you browsed the thumbnails. Currently the thumbnails are shown three times just so I can test the scrolling. I think I have a solution for navigating the galleries so that will come in the next few days.
This has grown out of a Flash implementation that has more functionality at the moment but obviously no iOS support. A lot has gone into the backend and I'm happy with how quickly it is translating to and HTML/CSS solution. I haven't added the CSS to adjust for portrait mode. I wanted to nail down the design elements before I did the portrait modifications.
I'm also able to post individual images on forums like the Photo of the Day here. Those will often be shown at the full 1024px.
So probably way more than you wanted to know, but there you have it: Why 600 pixels is too big.
Edit: Oh and some of the features will only work on a newer browser such as those based on WebKit due to some of the CSS3. So don't bother trying it on IE6.
