Image size for critiquing.

[Derek1945]

Can some-one tell me what is the longest side dimension in pixels and what resolution is required for uploading images.
Thanks

[Bjørn Rørslett]

1200 x 800 is a good starting point.

Many upload bigger, but then face the issue of resizing and the need for clicking up the image.

[Frank Fremerey]

I do it in 1400 to 1600 pixels on the long side

Why?

Because ... depending on the resolution of the device you use to view this site ... images will resize.

To see the pics as intended by the poster you have to do a right click and "view image"

The admins want to keep the site simpel so in some parts it is more functional than comfortable, esp. if you use your phone to access it.

Welcome!

[Bjørn Rørslett]

Not that easy, Frank.

The main issue is that of what image height is possible on the viewing device. Most monitors are optimised for video viewing these days, so height is restricted compared to width. The situation of available screen estate is further exacerbated by most web browsers and all their space requirement for various tool bars. One might end up with less than  800 pix even on an HD capable device.

[Fons Baerken]

I learned that 1024px wide and 800 high is the best option in most cases, too much iq loss with other formats mainly  'cause of compression, unless you do stitched panos obviously.
I choose 300dpi but thats mainly out of convenience, dont want too many jpg versions stored.

[Øivind Tøien]

Not that easy, Frank.

The main issue is that of what image height is possible on the viewing device. Most monitors are optimised for video viewing these days, so height is restricted compared to width. The situation of available screen estate is further exacerbated by most web browsers and all their space requirement for various tool bars. One might end up with less than  800 pix even on an HD capable device.

If a portrait format image get too tall to display, the simple remedy is to make the web browser window narrower until the full height of the image is visible (as it scales to the width). The process is as simple as dragging the right edge back and forth. (I assume a phone or pad can simply be turned to portrait format and back again).  Users have full control.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

"300 dpi" is meaningless in the context of viewing an image on a monitor.

Try say 5000 dpi and observe there is no change in the displayed image. I reset dpi from 300 to 5000 on the attached image. It will now *print* at 0.7x1.2 cm if the dpi setting is obeyed. Obviously the dpi has been ignored on the web.

[Frank Fremerey]

Bjørn's picture is 2444 x 1312 pixels. Right click and choose "view image" to see it the way Bjørn mixed it down to.

I feel sometimes, esp. with panography that people should have the chance to see more details. So I bear the resize and know they can look at it using theit browsers features.

[elsa hoffmann]

I am with Fons

Bjørn - nice pic of the pool  

[Derek1945]

Thanks everyone for replying, I will be uploading an image soon.

[Andrea B.]

We have recommendations for sizing posted here:  http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,113.0.html

I guess nobody ever reads them.

[pluton]

I read them. 
They were helpful. 
I think that some new members may not notice the upfront post, because they are used to other sites that do not offer helpful suggestions right up at the top where you can 'grab easy'.
I've oscillated between attaching vs Flickring , mostly Flickr.  Mostly at 1000 to 1200 along the long edge. 

[elsa hoffmann]

We have recommendations for sizing posted here:  http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,113.0.html

I guess nobody ever reads them.

They were noticed - just not followed.