I personally find side/down scrolling to view an image irritating. I
prefer to view the picture as a whole, rather than in 4 quarters. But
that's just me. Image quality inspections don't apply here.
I guess you could make several sizes and have the large image as an
option. Even so, 2000 might be slightly overkill, since only people with
21" monitors would consider approaching that resolution. I would vote
for 1600 width as absolute maximum (which still gives you quite a bit of
resolution).
Dan
-----Original Message-----
From: olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx [mailto:olympus-owner@xxxxxxxxxx] On
Behalf Of Johan Malmström
Sent: Wednesday, 11 February 2004 8:01 PM
To: olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [OM] Size of pictures on the web was Re: TOPE 17
Moose and others,
I'm compiling a website for my pictures and I'm thinking of the photo
size.
I think that two grasp an image it has to fit on the screen, but would
you
say that it's necessary to be able to view a larger than screen size to
tell
if it's a good image (rather say "is the photographer handy with the
camera
and scanner...") Lets say that 800x800 covers both landscape and
portrait
pictures and fits most screens but, would you like to be able to see the
pictures in lets say with a side of 2000 pixels?
Any thoughts? The aim of the coming site is to promote me and some of my
pictures (and keep the National Tax Board happy).
/ Johan
--
http://privat.johanmalmstrom.se
icq: 20012555
aim: johanplupp
The olympus mailinglist olympus@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe: mailto:olympus-request@xxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe
To contact the list admins: mailto:olympusadmins@xxxxxxxxxx?subject="Olympus
List Problem"
|