On 12/23/2010 8:14 AM, Ken Norton wrote:
> . . .
> During 2011, I will be implementing a feature on Zone-10 where I literally
> give away a photo a month which is sized for screen savers or backgrounds.
> The main page will show the image in the standard web-page size, but when you
> click on it, you can get a large one in several sizes to match your screen
> resolution.
Just like the old practice of handing out calendars. I think I still get one
from my insurance agent. Your images will
be better, though.
My screen saver and desktop background images, however, are my own. :-)
>>> An active site area of more than 840x600 pixels might be worth considering,
>>> too. Most gallery and gallery design software sizes to fill the browser
>>> window, which is much more attractive that a small gallery in
>>> the corner of a sea of blank blue.
> The Zone-10 website standard is 800 pixel width for image area with a
> 20-pixel white border.
How well I know. ;-)
> This works with the overall page design to work will in almost any computer
> screen or browser.
Still, it's a blog style, with room on the side or sides for ads, etc. For
selling images, I'd want a different style.
> What is very disconcerting, however, is the shrinking height of our computer
> screens. It used to be that 1024x768 was the standard, then 1280x1024. But
> now with the letterbox-format screens you are lucky to get 720 pixel height!
> Sometimes more, sometimes less.
Oh my, yes! I tried and tried to upgrade my old, 4:3 laptop to be usable with
current software, etc. Just didn't work.
So here I am with an otherwise quite nice netbook+ with a silly 16:9, 1366x768
px screen.
Adding to the problem are all those folks who would like me to add their
horizontal only toolbars. I'm still using an
app launch toolbar from Office 97. It takes a bit of effort to make it work on
Vista and W7, but it's worth it 'cause it
will go vertical on the side of the screen.
> This makes it much more difficult to display vertical-oriented images on the
> webpage because you have to make the long-side not 800 pixels, but no more
> than 700 pixels. This really bothers me because I have some pictures I'd like
> to display on Zone-10 that I literally cannot because if I shrink them enough
> to fit on the computer screen, the image is too small.
Yup, yup, yup. My standard for verticals on my galleries is 780 pixels, but I
can't even see quite all that at once full
screen on my portable. Still, it's the only game in town now, so it's play that
way or leave.
>>> The few people actually making money from their art photography are
>>> spending time making images and promoting them, not coding HTML. You may
>>> recall Bob saying that he has a web site because it is expected by those
>>> who buy his images - but almost all actual sales are in person in galleries
>>> or restaurants.
> . . .
>
> But back to image dimensions for a moment, there is a careful balance between
> image dimensions and usability. Even with the faster DSL speeds people have
> at their homes, you need to average 100-150k file size per image. People
> won't wait around for 300k files to download--especially when you have
> several on a page.
Isn't that partly your format? In a gallery site where there is only one large
image on view at a time, it should be
less of a problem. I wonder about pre-loading the next image while one is being
viewed; then 'Next' would be instant. I
know some slide show do that.
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|